SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar, JJ.
Bibhishan Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
Damodar Valley Corporation through Member Secretary and ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No.195 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 17 – Limitation Act – Section 5 – Regular departmental proceeding – Memorandum of charge – Sufficient cause – Period of limitation – Power of judicial – Held, Court, after having referred factual aspect and settled position of law and coming back to order passed by administrative authority, is of considered view that decision so taken based upon conclusive finding in enquiry report, it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has committed any error – Aforesaid order has been affirmed by appellate authority – Learned Single Judge on consideration of aforesaid fact, according to court considered view, is correct in not showing any interference – Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No.4552 of 2022

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 42 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard the parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 42 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 4552 of 2022 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.195 of 2022

5. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 23.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1630 of 2019 whereby and whereunder while dismissing the writ petition the order dated 01.02.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the writ petitioner from service has been affirmed, has been refused to be interfered with.

6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

7. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and he joined D.V.C. in the year 1989 on the post of Assistant Operator (Electrical) after successful completion of selection procedure and verification of educational certificate and caste certificate.

8. The Joint Director of Personnel(T) vide letter No. 2292 dated 12.06.2012 wrote to the Petitioner that the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner issued by Block development Officer, Nirsa bearing No. 251 dated 25.06.1979 at the time of joining D.V.C. on 28.08.1989 is not in conformity with the proforma as stipulated by Government of India. On verification of the same, it has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad that the record is forty years old and no documents in this regard is available in this office. Thereafter, the Petitioner was advised to furnish a fresh Caste Certificate issued by competent authority as per Government of India Rules to be obtained from his permanent abode i.e. Bhagalpur on or before 09.07.2012.

9. As per instruction, the writ petitioner submitted another caste certificate bearing No.347 dated 29.06.2001 issued under the signature of D.M., Banka, Bihar. On verification, it was reported that the same had not been issued from the office of the D.M., Banka.

10. Thereafter, by the Orders of Director (HRD) & Disciplinary Authority dated 25.09.2013 the Petitioner has been put under Suspension with immediate effect. The memorandum of charge was issued against him on 20.12.2013 and the petitioner was asked to submit his written statement as defence within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said Memorandum of charge.

11. After enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report wherein the charges have been found to be proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the finding of the enquiry officer and ordered for removal from service vide order dated 21.05.2018. The aforesaid order was challenged before the appellate authority but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 01.02.2019 and affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S)1630 of 2019 which was also dismissed against which present intra-court appeal has been preferred.

12. It is a case where the writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Operator (Electrical). The said recruitment was made under the Scheduled Caste category based upon the caste certificate dated 25.06.1979. The respondents had issued a letter dated 12.06.2012 mentioning therein that the caste certificate of the writ petitioner was not in conformity with the Government of India Rules. The writ petitioner was thereafter requested to furnish

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top