Vijay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3125 of 2021

Vijay Kumar Singh, Aged about 56 years, son of late Yamuna Prasad Singh, Resident of Azad Nagar, Vikas Bhawan Road, P.O. & P.S. Sahebganj, DistrictSahebganj.

¶3

....Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand;

¶6

Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand having office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi;

¶7

Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand having office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi;

¶8

Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand having office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi;

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Ms. Piyushita Neha Tudu, A.C. to A.A.G.-IV ---------

¶12

08/Dated:-20.09.2024

¶13

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶14

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to grant promotion to this petitioner after opening the sealed cover as there was a departmental proceeding pending against this petitioner, which has now come to an end.

¶15

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 24.03.2004, a charge-sheet was issued against this petitioner in relation to discrepancy in the muster roll, however, the said departmental proceeding culminated in order of punishment of censure vide order date 31.08.2018. Further fact reveals that a criminal case was also instituted against this petitioner amongst others, wherein charge-sheet was submitted on 17.04.2004 and the said criminal case is still pending and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial.

¶16

4. The case of the petitioner is that on 28.11.2014, DPC was held to consider the case of promotion amongst others and since at that time, the proceedings, both criminal and civil were pending, his case was kept in a sealed cover as per the settled proposition of service jurisprudence. Subsequently, on 31.08.2018, the petitioner was punished for censure and since the effect of censure is only one year, as such, the petitioner’s case is that on the one hand, the criminal proceeding is pending since last more than 20 years and on the other hand, in the civil proceeding, the effect of punishment is now over; as such, the sealed cover may be opened in the light of the resolution as contained in Memo No.6227 dated 20.11.2008, wherein at Clause5, the procedure has been stipulated in the case where the proceedings are pending for more than two years.

¶17

5. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner relying upon the resolution dated 20.11.2008, submits that in view of specific stipulation made in Clause-5 of the said resolution, the sealed cover procedure which was adopted by the DPC in case of this petitioner held in the year 2014, may now be opened and effect of comments be given in the case of this petitioner.

¶18

6. Learned counsel for the respondents upon instruction, submits that the case can be disposed of by directing the respondents to open the sealed cover in the light of the resolution dated 20.11.2008.

¶19

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, admittedly, vide order dated 31.08.2018, an order of punishment was passed against this petitioner for censure in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. It is also an admitted fact that a criminal case was also lodged against this petitioner amongst others in the year 2004 itself, wherein charge-sheet was also submitted.

¶20

Further fact reveals that in the year 2014, a DPC was

¶21

2

¶22

held to consider the case of promotion, wherein his case was kept in sealed cover due to pendency of the departmental as well as criminal proceedings.

¶23

8. The contention of the petitioner that since, in the departmental proceeding, there was only punishment of censure and the effect of censure is one year; as such, the effect of nonconsideration is over. So far as the criminal proceeding is concerned; since the criminal proceeding is pending for more than 20 years; as such, now the sealed cover should be opened in the light of resolution dated 20.11.2008.

¶24

In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it is necessary to peruse Clause-5 of the said resolution. For brevity Clause-5 is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶25

“5. कायवाही िन�पादन म� िवल� �ब क� ि�थित म तदथ� �ो�ित क� स� भावनां :- उपयु� किडका- 4 म� उि�लिखत छमाही समी�ा �कये जाने क ं ं बावजूद े े , क ु ु छ ऐसे मामले भी हो सकते ह� , िजनमे पहली िवभागीय �ो�ित सिमित , िजसने सरकारी सेवक क संबंध म� े े अपने िन�कष� को मुहरबंद िलफाफ म� रखा था े े , क� बैठक क� ितिथ से दो साल बाद भी सरकारी सेवक क िव�� अनुशासिनक मामले / आपरािधक अिभयोजन संबंधी माम ल� म� े े अंितम �प नह� �दया जा सका है। ऐसी प�रि�थित म� िनयुि� अिधकारी ऐसे सरकारी सेवक क मामले क� समी�ा कर�। अगर यह सरकारी सेवक िनल�बनाधीन न हो, तो िन�ां�कत े े पहलु� को �यान म� रखते �ए उसे तदथ� �ो�ित �दये जाने क� संभावना पर िवचार �कया जाय :-

¶26

( क) �या सरकारी सेवक क� �ो�ित लोकिहत क िव�� होगी े े ?

¶27

( ख) �या आरोप इतने गंभीर ह� �क उसे �ो�ित से वंिचत रखे रहना ज�री है ?

¶28

( ग) �या िनकट भिव�य म� इस मामले क पूरा होने क� संभावना है े े ?

¶29

( घ) �या �कसी िवभागीय अथवा �कसी आपरािधक काय�वाही को अंितम �प �दये जाने म� होने वाले िवल�ब म� सीधे तौर पर अथवा परो� �प म� संबंिधत सेवक का कोई हाथ है ?' ( ड०) �या ऐसी कोई संभावना है �क संबंिधत सेवक तदथ� �ो�ित क बाद �ा� �ई े े अपनी सरकारी हैिसयत का दु�पयोग कर सकता है और िजसक प�रणाम�व�प िवभागीयः े े मामले / आपरािधक काय�वाही से संबंिधत कार�वाई पर कोई �ितक ू ू ल �भाव पड़ सकता है ? िनयुि� �ािधकार य�द उिचत समंझे तो कारण� को िलिखत �प से दशा�ते �ए लोकायु� क काया�लय े े , िनगरानी , िवभाग अथवा क��ीय अ�वेषण �यूरो े े , िजनक �ितवेदन क े े े े आधार पर अनुशासिनक कार�वाई / आपरािधक अिभयोजन �ार�भ �आ था , से परामश� िलया जा सकता है। �क�तु िनयुि� �ािधकार इस संक�प म� उि�लिखत िनदेश� क िवपरीत े े परामश� को मानने क िलए बा�य नह� ह�गे े े ”

¶30

9. From bare perusal of Clause-5 of resolution No.6227 dated 20.11.2008; in the background of the facts of the instant case, the contention of the of the petitioner appears to be genuine because as per the resolution, if any proceeding is not culminated after two years, then the case should be reviewed after period of two years of sealed cover arrangement.

¶31

3

¶32

10. Accordingly, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of directing the concerned respondent to open the sealed cover, since there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in view of Clause-5 which is referred to hereinabove and proceed in accordance with law with regard to the promotion of this petitioner.

¶33

It goes without saying that if any promotion is granted to this petitioner, it will be deemed from the date when the coemployees were given promotion pursuant to the DPC held in the year 2014.

¶34

11. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed.

¶35

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶36

vikas/AFR

¶37

4

Vijay Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birendra Kumar Khatry Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Maniruddin Vs State of Jharkhand

Mahesh Kumar Mehtar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Avinash Chandra Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development Deptt

Bhanu Pratap Bhushan Vs State of Jharkhand

Sushil Kumar Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its Chairman