Writ application challenging dismissal from service sought liberty to file representation alleging selective enforcement and inequality. Court disposed of petition by granting liberty to file representation within two months.
Liberty to file detailed representation showing inequality before competent authority within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3610 of 2010
Dr. Sunil Kumar Sinha ..… Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kr. No.3, Advocate
11/09.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in Memo No. 3035 dated 26.12.2007 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of conviction in criminal case which is against the Circular dated 23.8.1963, which is still prevailing and has never been modified or amended.
3. Since the issue involved in the instant writ application has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 136 of 2016; as such after some argument, Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent authorities have adopted pick and choose method by giving benefits to one Vibha Kumari, Sajal Chakraborty and Shailendra Kumar Kashyap, who were also involved in A.H.D. Scam cases and were convicted. As such he prayed that he may be granted liberty to file a detailed representation showing inequality amongst different employees and the pick and choose method adopted by the respondents.
4. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent State opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant writ application, inasmuch as, the issue raised has already been decided by this Court.
He further contended that even if any illegality has been committed in the past that cannot take precedence; rather the respondents would look into the matter if at all any illegality has been committed previously.
-2-
However, he fairly submits that if any detailed representation is filed showing inequality and pick and choose method adopted by the respondents; then the representation shall be considered in accordance with law and necessary order will be passed.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and limited submission of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation showing inequality before the competent authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
If any such representation is filed then the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 136 of 2016.
Needless to say that if any illegality has been committed that cannot take precedence and that shall be rectified in accordance with law.
6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to a detailed representation opportunity regarding alleged inequality in dismissal decisions.
Whether the 'pick and choose' method adopted by respondents constitutes illegality requiring review.
Whether dismissal based on criminal conviction prevailing circulars is legal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(S) No. 136 of 2016Referred¶10
Dr. Sunil Kumar Sinha
State of Jharkhand
Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
DEEPAK ROSHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
