IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2085 of 2009
Manzoorul Hassan Ansari .
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors .
-----------
3. 08.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the
State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand.
The writ petition was filed on 10.2.2009 after
serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General for
the State of Bihar and also on the counsel for the State of
Jharkhand. While the State of Jharkhand has filed its
counter affidavit, nearly two and half years has not been
considered sufficient by the State of Bihar to assist the
Court in timely dispensation of justice.
The petitioner who is stated to have hold the post
of Junior Engineer in the Chaibasa Sub-Division prior to
the reorganization of the State was placed under
suspension on 21.6.1988 for a missing tractor of the
department alleging conspiracy against him. A first
information report lodged against him led to a criminal
prosecution in which he has been acquitted by judgment
and order dated 29.5.1998 of the Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 446/85/T.R. No.
85 of 1998 arising out of Munsif Chaibasa P.S. Case No.
97 of 1985 under Sections 409, 407 and 120 B of the
Indian Penal Code. A copy of the judgment was placed by
2
the counsel for the petitioner during submissions.
Simultaneously, the petitioner was subjected to a
departmental proceeding. It concluded with a finding of
guilt whereafter his suspension has been revoked on
16.6.1993 . The order stated that the punishment would
be pronounced later.
The aforesaid events took place in the unified
State of Bihar. The relevant date for reorganization of the
State is 15.11.2000. Thus there was more than adequate
time and opportunity for the unified State of Bihar to
pass appropriate punishment order after the conclusion
of the departmental proceedings and even after the order
revoking suspension dated 16.6.1993 in pursuance of the
conclusion of the proceedings. No orders have been
passed till date and the petitioner is stated to have
superannuated in 2009.
From the judgment of the criminal Court it
appears that the prosecution failed to prove the charge on
merit much less even on suspicion of conspiracy.
If the petitioner had been found guilty in the
departmental proceedings the order of punishment was
required to state in context of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service
Code with regard to the status of the petitioner in the
interregnum along with final punishment.
The Court therefore holds that the agony which
3
the petitioner underwent by suspension, institution of a
criminal prosecution, and indictment in the departmental
proceedings all are considered as sufficient punishment
for him. But in view of his acquittal in the criminal case
on merits and the complete absence of the State of Bihar
to pass any order of punishment for unreasonably long
years, that the petitioner has now retired from service, the
Court considers it proper to direct that the petitioner is
held entitled to his arrears of salary from the date of
suspension till revocation less what may have been paid
to him as subsistence allowance.
Since the entire issue pertains to the period when
the petitioner was posted in the unified State of Bihar and
the departmental proceedings had also achieved finality
much prior to the reorganization of the State of Bihar, the
entire liability rests with the State of Bihar to comply the
order.
Let this order be complied with by the respondent
State of Bihar within a maximum period of three months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
The writ application stands allowed.
P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)