ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 15-01-2024 Heard Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Avinash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the BIADA.

2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the Memo No.2241 dated 24.04.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 by which respondent No.2 has rejected the claim of back wages of the petitioner while the respondent No.1 did not pass any order under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. Further prayer for a direction upon the respondent authorities to make payment of back wages of the petitioner for the period from 03.11.2007 to 10.02.2012 i.e. the period during which the petitioner was illegally remained under the compulsory retirement by an illegal order passed by the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main question arising in the present writ application is that whether the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order contained in Memo No.2241 dated 24.04.2012 and the respondent No.1 has not passed any order against the petitioner but the respondent No.2 passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner and as per Rule 97 of Bihar Service Code, the respondent No.2 was not competent to pass the impugned order which was not made by the respondent No.1.

4. The petitioner was working as routine clerk in BIADA vide Memo No.923 dated 30.04.2007 he was transferred as Area Incharge to Industrial Area, Buxar. While the petitioner was discharging as Area Incharge, Industrial Area, Buxar he has received two applications addressed to the Executive Director, BIADA, Patna, one was on behalf of the Unit named as Tractor Engineers wherein the three partners of the Firm had requested that they are unable to run their unit. In that view of the matter, they may be allowed to transfer their Unit alongwith all the movable and immovable assets to one Minakshi Industries. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that another letter bearing No.266 dated 06.09.2007 which was also addressed to the Executive Director, BIADA was written by one Arun Kumar Mishra who was Proprietor of M/s Minakshi Industries who also requested for transfer of M/s Tractor Engineers on his name as Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra was ready to establish a Unit for electric Pole and Railway Sleeper. Petitioner being the Incharge of the Industrial Area, Buxar has forwarded the letters submitted by M/s Tractor Engineers and M/s Minakshi Industries to the Executive Directors, BIADA. In his letter, he has discussed the proposal given by both the Firms with a note at the bottom of the letter “ Thus, in the given situation, if it is acceptable, then consideration may be made for transferring the land A-9, Area 1400 S.Ft.

Allotted to M/s Tractor Engineers to M/s Minakshi Industries”.

5. It appears from the aforesaid, the petitioner was never made any proposal for transferring the land as desired by the Executive Engineers it was just a forwarding letter wherein entire matters was depending upon the discretion of the Higher Authorities even the petitioner has not made any favourable recommendation for transferring the land. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended vide Memo No.3889 dated 21.09.2007 issued by the respondent No.3 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from a bare perusal of the plain reading of the suspension order, it is apparent that merely on the basis of the letter written by the petitioner, he was suspended and it has been alleged in the letter dated 21.09.2007 that the petitioner has committed gross irregularities and suppression of fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after receiving of the letter dated 21.09.2007 the petitioner made a representation before the Secretary on 08.10.2007 he has stated in his letter that he had written in the word “ may be considered, if acceptable” and he was working as Area Incharge for the first time he might