IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Review No.154 of 2011
In
(CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 14186/2010)
BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIWAHAN
BHAWAN BIR CHAND PATEL MARG PATNA THROUGH ITS
ADMINISTRATOR.
Versus
1. SHYAM KISHORE SINGH SON OF LATE BANWARI SINGH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR P.S. JAMALPUR DIST.
MUNGER.
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA.
3. DEPOT SUPERINTENDENT, BIHAR STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BIHAR SHARIF, NALANDA.
For the petitioner : Mr. Nand Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Shree Ganesh, Advocate.
-----------------
02. 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the Bihar State
Road Transport Corporation(hereinafter referred to as
the Corporation) and the counsel for the writ
petitioner.
By filing the review petition Corporation is
seeking review of the order dated 24.09.2010 passed
by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.14186 of 2010,
whereunder punishment order dated 18.11.2002
withholding his leave salary and gratuity amount has
been quashed holding that the said order was passed
without serving on him any charge memo as also
without giving him any opportunity to defend
himself. Review of the said order is being sought on
the ground that before retirement of the petitioner on
2
31.12.2000 he was himself appearing in the
proceeding and in support of such fact representation
dated 13.06.1996 filed by the petitioner before the
Special Officer has been placed on record of the
review petition as Annexure-6 and with reference to
the same and the other notices referred to in
paragraph 5G of the review petition it is submitted
that even after retirement of the petitioner notice
dated 9.11.2000 10.1.2001, 23.3.2001 and 12.5.2001
was served on the petitioner to participate in the
departmental proceeding but he failed to appear in the
proceeding, the Enquiry Officer submitted report
dated 25.7.2001, Annexure-9 on the basis of which
punishment order dated 18.11.2002 was passed.
Aforesaid submission has been noted for being
rejected for the reason that from the review petition it
does not appear that either the notices referred to in
paragraph-5G or the enquiry report dated 25.7.2001
was ever served on the petitioner before passing the
punishment order dated 18.11.2002. Further aspect
which has come to light is that petitioner was not paid
salary for the period 23.7.1994-26.7.1994 the date
3
between the alleged misconduct and suspension. He
was also not paid subsistence allowance from the date
of suspension, thereby seriously prejudiced to
participate in the proceeding. The enquiry report
dated 25.7.2001 having also not been served on the
petitioner he had no opportunity at all to defend
himself. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason
to review the order dated 24.09.2010 passed in
C.W.J.C. No.14186 of 2010. The review petition is
dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.5,000/-.
( V. N. Sinha, J.)
Rajesh/