Rajdeo Narayan Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 07.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(S) No. 759/2009 by which the writ petition was dismissed.

The petitioner/appellant herein had filed the writ petition challenging the order of his dismissal from the post of Dresser in the Animal Husbandry Department. The Order of dismissal was passed on account of conviction of the petitioner/appellant for certain criminal charges which included offence under Sections 341, 323 and 504 I.P.C.

Admittedly, the order of conviction is still in existence as the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner/appellant herein against his order of conviction, is still pending and there is not even a stay order operating in favour of the appellant against his conviction. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the order of dismissal and further refusing his reinstatement.

Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the learned Single Judge has made certain observations indicating that the petitioner/appellant herein is not fit to be reinstated in service as he had indulged in gross indiscipline by abusing the superior officer and has further observed that the petitioner/appellant herein had managed to obtain an order of acquittal due to which the learned Single Judge was not inclined to interfere.

It was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the observations made by the learned Single Judge would come in the way of the appellant at the time of his reinstatement even if he is finally acquitted in case his revision is allowed. Although the counsel may be correct to this extent that the observations might prejudice the case of the petitioner/appellant herein In future in case his conviction is set aside and his revision is allowed, the facts remains that the petitioner/appellant herein himself invited trouble for himself by filing the writ petition and challenging his dismissal since the petitioner/appellant herein was well aware that the order of his conviction had not been set aside due to which the writ petition was obviously pre-mature and yet he filed a petition challenging the order of his dismissal and in the process is now suffering the observations of the learned Single Judge.

However, the observation of the learned Single Judge, prima facie, is not in accordance with law, as it would not be correct for any Court to say that the judgment and order of acquittal which was delivered after adjudication could be held to be managed by any one, including the accused and considering the nature of the observation if allowed to remain is bound to influence the authority at the time of his reinstatement we agree that the observations would prejudice the case of the appellant on merit. Nevertheless, we reiterate that it is the petitioner/appellant herein who had filed the writ petition challenging his dismissal although the same was premature.

Thus, we although do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge deem it appropriate to record that the observations of the learned Single Judge may not be allowed to come in the way of the appellant at the appropriate stage, if at all his conviction is set aside by any Court at a subsequent stage.

The appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid observation.