Petitioner withdrew writ application seeking reconsideration of his re-engagement as government employee pending final outcome of a vigilance enquiry, submitting the vigilance process would take time.
Writ application disposed of; clarity given that pendency of vigilance enquiry shall not bar consideration of the petitioner's representation for re-engagement.
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.
W.P.(C) No. 9393 of 2016
3. 2.1.2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits for withdrawal of t
his writ application with liberty to the petitioner to move the authority with a representatio
n for reconsideration of the matter relating to his re-engagement as GPTA in Agalpur Block on
contractual basis pending final decision of Samabalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 dated 5.4.20
16.
The allegation against this petitioner is that when he was accepting illegal g
ratification, he was trapped by the vigilance authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the result of the vigilance ca
se is not likely come so soon and therefore till the case is disposed of in accordance with la
w deciding his guilty or otherwise, his case for re-engagement stands for consideration.
Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that it is for the authority to take nece
ssary decision and in case such a representation is made, the same would be considered and dis
posed of in accordance with law.
Considering the submission without expressing any opinion on the merit of the
matter, the writ application is disposed of making it clear that pendency of vigilance enquiry
may not be a bar of the opp.parties to consider the representation of the petitioner, if so f
iled for his further re-engagement.
D. Dash, J.Aks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pendency of a vigilance enquiry acts as a bar to the authority receiving a representation for reconsideration of the petitioner's re-engagement.
Whether the writ court should dispose of the application allowing the petitioner to seek administrative reconsideration pending the finalization of the vigilance case.
Petitioner
Respondent
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court