The State of Bihar and Others vs Mithilesh Kumar Verma

The appeal suffers from delay of 120 days and for condonation thereof, an application (I.A. No. 3847 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay, for the cause shown in the application we are of the view that the appeal is devoid of any substance and it does not deserve to be admitted.

The Single Judge in the impugned order observed thus:-

"I find that the entire procedure of conducting the enquiry issuing a show cause and the manner in which the proceedings were conducted is beyond the conception of the procedure laid down and principles of natural justice.

The order of dismissal for absence for 8 days, in any event is excessive specially in view of the fact that the petitioner had pleaded that he was unwell and therefore was unable to attend his duty.

Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that at this stage the respondents should be given an opportunity to conduct a proper proceeding in this matter and thereafter issue an appropriate order. This matter relates to the year 1994 and it is about time that the matter should come to a rest. The petitioner has been put out of work since 1994 to 2008 almost for 13 years and that in itself is sufficient suffering and punishment in the circumstances of this case, and as such, I do not think it proper that after a lapse of thirteen years, the petitioner should undergo the harassment and hardship of facing a fresh departmental proceeding.

The order of dismissal is quashed in view of the fact that it is de hors of the law laid down for conducting a departmental proceeding and is against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner should be reinstated in the service and given all consequential benefits to which he is legally entitled."

The State counsel does not challenge the finding of the Single Judge that the procedure of conducting the enquiry was not in accord with law and the order of dismissal was bad. He, however, submits that the respondent is not entitled to back wages. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, .

We carefully considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Uday Narain Pandey and, are of the view that the said decision does not apply to the fact situation of the present case.

The order passed by the Single Judge and impugned in the present appeal does not call for any interference by us. L.P.A. stands dismissed in limine. This disposes of I.A. No. 3847 of 2008 as well.