CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2004) 02 JH CK 0038

Ravindra Nath vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 26 February 2004 · Citation: (2004) 2 JCR 259

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tapen Sen, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No. 6617 of 2002

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

6 paragraphs · 342 words

Tapen Sen, J.—When this case was called out, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate stated that the client has taken away the file and he has given ''No Objection''. Thereafter the case was called out on a number of times but no body appeared to press this application on behalf of the petitioner.

2.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 04.10.2002 as contained in Annexure-7 whereby and whereunder he has been removed from the post of Accountant-cum-Head Clerk of the Hazaribagh Mines Board.

3.

Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Additional Collector-cum-Secretary, Hazaribagh, Mines Board, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 3) has taken into consideration two First Information Reports lodged against the petitioner and has also taken into consideration allegations of misuse of funds, acts of fraudulence, misappropriation and also the alleged involvement of the petitioner in a case relating to theft of the Road Roller. In addition, it has also been taken into consideration that so long as the petitioner continues to remain on that post, it would not be possible for an impartial enquiry and therefore, the petitioner was directed to handover charge to the Head Clerk of the Health Wing of the Board.

4.

Mr. H.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, with reference to the counter affidavit, submitted that there are serious charges against the petitioner and this Court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner.

5.

Taking into consideration the statements made in the counter affidavit as also the text of the impugned order, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order that too when the same does not amount to either termination or dismissal of the petitioner, but rather, only prevents him from functioning as an Accountant Incharge in the interests of the Board so that an impartial enquiry is not disrupted.

6.

For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.