Bimal Kumar vs The State of Bihar and Others

The matter relates to the suspension f the Petitioner-Appellant and ultimately dismissal after an enquiry had been conducted. The issue itself relates to an embezzlement which took place of a sum of Rs. 34,381.88/- on the night of 12/13 March, 1984. Criminal proceedings had also been instituted but the court is intimated that lese criminal proceedings resulted in an acquittal of the Appellant.

Basically two objections were raised on behalf of the Appellant in the latter relating to the conduct of the domestic enquiry that (a) he had not been given a copy of the enquiry report and (b) he had not been permitted to cross-examine the witnesses.

After the matter was examined in the writ petition in so far as the last aspect is concerned, the record shows that the Appellant had examined witnesses. So first part is concerned, the Appellant had been given opportunity to see the record which opportunity he did not avail. The Appellant denied himself the opportunity and it is not that he was not given an opportunity.

The Appellant had a right to file an appeal under Rule 162 read with Section 16 of the Regulations known as Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board Employees'' service Regulations but instead of filing an appeal before the Board, the Appellant resorted to filing an appeal before the Minister. It is not understood why the Appellant approached the Minister instead of utilising e statutory alternative remedy available challenge the enquiry proceeding.

In the circumstances, the fact that the relief was not granted on the writ petition is no error.

Thus, the letters patent appeal is dismissed.