High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 02 PAT CK 0094

Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority vs Sitaram Paswan Son of Late Munshi Paswan

Patna High Court · Decided on 22 February 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Nilu Agrawal
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
1414 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 361 words
1.

There is a delay of 130 days in filing the appeal. Though the Court is not satisfied as such with the reason assigned in I.A.

No.6186 of 2015, however, in the interest of justice the delay is condoned. I.A. is allowed. Thereafter, The matter is taken up on the merits.

2.

The order under challenge is dated 30th of January, 2015

passed in CWJC No.19282 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ application of the sole private respondent, who was the petitioner before the writ court, and quashed the order of punishment of dismissal passed against him by the appellant authorities.

3.

Four charges were drawn up against the private respondent.

A show cause was issued upon him. Based on the show cause and without even considering the show cause as such, order of dismissal was passed. The finding is that no enquiry was held worth the name, if any, and the harshest punishment of dismissal was passed on charges of absence of a few days here and there.

4.

Considering the procedure, which was adopted by the appellants to get rid of the services of the private respondent, the learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the erstwhile Chairman of BIADA and directed payment of 75% of back wages and all other retiral benefits to which the private respondent may be entitled to.

5.

Taking the facts as well as the law into consideration, the only option available before the learned Single Judge was to set aside the order of dismissal passed against the private respondent to be totally irrational, arbitrary and which has been passed without following any procedure known in the canons of rule of law.

6.

It was a fit case in fact where exemplary cost should have been awarded upon the appellants which this Court was inclined to do even in appeal. However, on an earnest request and submission made by counsel for the appellants the Court only cautioned and warned the authorities that nobody can be law by himself because law must prevail over and above every authority exercising power.

7.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.