High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 01 PAT CK 0111

Shekhar Chandra Verma vs The State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 27 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Ravi Ranjan
CASE NUMBER
487 of 2017

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

41 paragraphs · 381 words
1.

Heard parties.

2.

This writ application has been filed for a direction to

the respondent authorities to grant promotion and consequential

monetary benefits to the petitioner after dropping the departmental

proceeding initiated against him on the consideration of the

representation dated 09.12.2016 filed by the petitioner.

3.

A departmental proceeding was initiated against the

petitioner vide Annexure 3 dated 12.08.2015.

4.

At the time of hearing of this writ application, the

petitioner confines his relief only for a direction to the disciplinary

authority to take a final decision in his matter in which departmental

proceeding was initiated against him in the facts and circumstances as

stated below.

5.

By filing supplementary affidavit, the petitioner draws

attention that the enquiry was held and enquiry officer has submitted

his report which has been appended as Annexure P to the

supplementary affidavit on 29.03.2016 exonerating him from the

charges. However, a show cause notice was issued against the

petitioner seeking his reply as disciplinary authority was not agreeing

with the finding of the enquiry officer. Petitioner claims that he filed

reply and, thereafter, the matter proceeded and vide Annexure Q, a

proposal was forwarded to the Minister-in-Charge to accept the

explanation of the petitioner and drop/consign the disciplinary

proceeding. Thereafter, there is a report of the Chief Secretary on the

file dated 07.10.2016 stating that for the aforesaid irregularities, if the

department does not find the delinquent officer responsible then it

may be clarified that who were responsible for holding examination,

evaluation and publication of result so that responsibility could be

fixed for the aforesaid irregularities.

6.

It is contended that the departmental proceeding,

which commenced in the year 2015, has not been concluded by

taking a final decision as yet and the petitioner is going to retire on

31st of January, 2017.

7.

In above view of the matter, this writ application is

being disposed of with a direction to the disciplinary authority to take

a final decision on its own merit and in accordance with law in the

departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, on or before

31st of January, 2017 as petitioner is going to retire on that date.

8.

It goes without saying that if the petitioner is

exonerated then he would be entitled for all the consequential

benefits.