ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet initiated vide Memo No. 1629 dated 15th March, 2000 and a notice dated 4th May, 2001 issued by Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Dinar, Patna whereby he was asked to second show cause why he be not punished, the charge Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 having found proved against him.
2. This case has been preferred by petitioner with his address at Bokaro and the pleading so made as if the petitioner is posted in the territory of Jharkhand and all the cause of action taken place in the State of Jharkhand, but the penal order has been passed by the State of Bihar.
3. This Court vide interim order dated 28th May, 2001 directed the Engineer-in-Chicf-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Speeial Secretaiy, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna not to pass final order in pursuance of the departmental proceedings in question. Later on, when it came to the notice of the Court that the charge-sheet was issued from Patna, an officer posted at Patna was made the enquiry officer, another officer posted at Patna was made the presenting Officer and the show cause notice was issued from Patna, to know the fact whether the petitioner is posted at Patna or not, this Court directed the parties to file supplementary affidavit/counter affidavit and state the headquarter of petitioner where he is posted during his suspension with a view to determine the territory in which the cause of action taken place. The State of Jharkhand was also directed not to pass any final order without prior permission of the Court.
4. Today (17.4.2003), Counsel for the petitioner accepts that the headquarter of petitioner was fixed at Patna during the period of suspension and the petitioner is still at Patna.
5. From the aforesaid fact, it is evident that the cause of action has been taken place in the State of Bihar and there was no occasion for the petitioner to move before the Jharkhand High Court which has no jurisdiction,
6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental proceeding stands transferred in the State of Jharkhand under Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 but such submission cannot be accepted, nor can be decided by this Court. If any question arises whether any proceeding stands transferred under Subsection (1) to Section 89 or not, the Patna High Court is the competent Court to give a finding as per Sub-section (2) to Section 89 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000.
7. The other ground taken by petitioner is that his services stands transferred to State of Jharkhand vide Memo No. 3975 dated 10th July, 2000 is also rejected, the aforesaid letter being not an order issued by the Central Government under Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. Till any notification is issued by the Central Government under Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 allocating the service of petitioner to the State of Jharkhand, his headquarter being at Patna, as per decision in the case of ‘State of Bihar v. Arvind Vijoy Billing’, reported 2002 (1) JCR 401, the State of Bihar or their authority is the competent authority to pass appropriate order in the departmental proceeding.
8. Therefore, the State of Jharkhand will send back all the relevant file/document to the concerned officer of the State of Bihar, immediately, who may pass appropriate order.
9. In this case, no cause of action
having taken place in the State of
Jharkhand, the present writ petition is not
maintainable in this Court. It is, accordingly, dismissed.