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

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 1096

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Manjunath Bhajantri - Petitioner.
Versus
Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. – Respondent 
W.P. (S) No.5716 of 2022 With I.A. No.1539 of 2024
Decided On : 26-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mrs. P. Jhunjhunwala, Mrs. Surabhi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate

The Election Commission's disciplinary authority over a Deputy Commissioner ends post-election results, rendering any subsequent directives invalid.

Headnote:(A) Representation of People's Act, 1951 - Sections 20-A and 28-A - Disciplinary proceedings - Communique issued for major penalty against Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer for alleged violations during election process, challenged as beyond jurisdiction post-election - Court found ECI’s authority limited post-election, dismissing the maintainability of disciplinary orders. (Paras 1, 5, 6, 27, 36)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - High Court's powers of judicial review include challenges to disciplinary actions but may require exhaustion of alternative remedies depending on the context - Not applicable when no service law violations are cited. (Paras 10, 21, 35)

Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed against the Election Commission’s directive to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, claiming jurisdictional overreach and the absence of any employer-employee relationship post-election results.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the Election Commission could not exercise control after the election results were declared, deeming the disciplinary action as without jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the Election Commission can initiate disciplinary proceedings post-election and the question of maintainability of the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the disciplinary powers of the Election Commission cease after the election process, illuminating the lack of employer authority to regulate post-election conduct.

Result: Writ petition allowed; action deemed without merit.

Table of Content
1. factual basis of the petition and election conduct. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. contentions on maintainability and alternative remedies. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. analysis of jurisdictional issues and legal framework. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
4. conclusion on maintainability as w.p.(c). (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
5. final order regarding case nomenclature. (Para 41 , 42)

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the communique as contained in Memo no.100/ES-1/JKD- LA/01/2021 dated 06.12.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India (ECI)-respondent no.2, whereby the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 03.11.2021 having not been found satisfactory, the State Government has been directed to initiate disciplinary proceeding for major penalty against the petitioner by issuing memo of charge against him with further direction to immediately remove him from the post of Deputy Commissioner-Cum-District Election Officer, Deoghar and not to post him as DC/DEO or on any other election duty without prior permission of the ECI.

2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the writ petition is that the petitioner was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar during bye-election of Madhupur Legislative Assembly Constituency held in the month of April, 2021. The petitioner being the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer informed the Chief Electoral Officer, Jharkhand vide letter dated 15.04.2021 citing various incidents of violating Model Code of Conduct, disturbing communal harmony and intimidating of voters as well as spreading racial hatred among them by Dr. Nishikant Dubey, Member of Parliament from Godda Loksabha Constituency during the election campaign of the said by-election.

3. A complaint dated 19.04.2021 was received by the ECI from Dr. Nishikant Dubey, M.P., Godda via email wherein it was alleged that the petitioner being the DEO, Deoghar and the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar were working as agents of a political party during the aforesaid by-election and requested to conduct enquiry against them. Thereafter, the ECI removed the petitioner from the position of DEO-cum-DC, Deoghar vide letter no. 100/ES-1/JKD-LA/1/2021 dated 26.04.2021 and appointed one Nancy Sahay in his place.

4. The process of election was completed on 02.05.2021. Thereafter the petitioner was again posted as D.C, Deoghar vide notification no.2381 dated 3.05.2021 and he assumed the charge on 04.05.2021. The petitioner vide letter dated 28.05.2021 and few other letters called for a report regarding the action taken against Dr. Nishikant Dubey, MP for violating Model Code of Conduct during the said by-election and on finding that no action was taken pursuant to the said letter dated 15.04.2021, he vide letter dated 23.10.2021 directed the concerned authorities to take legal action against said Dr. Nishikant Dubey and to send report within two days. The Chief Electoral Officer, Jharkhand vide letter no.2472 dated 26.10.2021 informed the petitioner that his complaint/letter dated 15.04.2021 with respect to the offences allegedly committed by Dr. Nishikant Dubey was already sent to the ECI vide letter dated 18.04.2021 for necessary action.

5. The ECI also received a report from Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Jharkhand on 26.10.2021 mentioning inter alia that five F.I.Rs. had been lodged against Dr. Nishikant Dubey under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for violating Model Code of Conduct during the by-election. It was further reported by the CEO, Jharkhand that neither any intimation was received from the petitioner before/after lodging of the FIRs. nor any direction was issued from the CEO office in this regard. The CEO Jharkhand thus sought guidance of ECI for taking further ac

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