AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Applicant has filed this application and the prayer made in the application reads as under:
(a) To quash and set aside the order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the respondents.
(b) To issue direction to the respondents to issue no objection certificate and immediate Discharge from Service to the applicant to join as a Revenue Officer (Rajaswa Padadhikari) in Revenue and Land Reforms department in Government of Bihar, Patna.
(c) To quash the AFO 33/2017 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional in the eye of law.
(d) To issue direction to the respondents to complete the Court of Inquiry (COI) pending, if any, expeditious and direct the respondents to issue Discharge to applicant from service on selection to civil post.
(e) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
Applicant seeks discharge from service on the ground that as far as the prohibition contained in the AFO 33/2017 and various other grounds for discharge are concerned, the matter stands concluded by judgments of this Tribunal and Delhi High Court affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no difficulty in accepting the aforesaid proposition and if that was the simple case of the applicant, we would have disposed of the matter, but from the facts that have come on record, we find that a Court of Inquiry is pending against the applicant and the allegation in the Court of Inquiry was that on a previous occasion, the applicant sought discharge from service by producing an appointment order purported to have been issued by the Union Public Service Commission for his appointment as an Assistant Conservator of Forest, Group ‘A’ service in the U.P. Government. It has been found that this is a fake document, he has not been appointed and on that count, a Court of Inquiry is pending. Certain reasons have been given for the delay in the Court of Inquiry not only by the counsel appearing for the respondents but also by the Officer-in-Charge.
Taking note of all these circumstances, at this stage, without permitting the respondents to file a detailed counter affidavit, prayer of the applicant to pass an interim order for his discharge cannot be granted. Discharge of an employee from service of the Force is not a matter of right. It is governed by the rules and regulations and in the present case as a Court of Inquiry is pending, we cannot pass any interim order ignoring all these factors. Even though the counsel for the applicant argues that the Court of Inquiry is not proper, the allegations made in the Court of Inquiry are not correct and the respondents are unnecessarily dragging the Court of Inquiry, the issue of Court of Inquiry is not a subject matter before us and therefore, we need not go into this question. Accordingly, the prayer of the applicant stands rejected.
The respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks.
List the matter on 27th May, 2022.
‘Dasti’