Dismissed

The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Dr.Mahesh Chandra Ray Sharma

Patna HC16 Jul 2012L.P.A/52/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court condoned a 126-day delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal. The bench dismissed the appeal, upholding a lower court setting aside disciplinary penalties imposed without evidence. Directions were issued to the State to pay salary differences during suspension, arrears until retirement, and recompute and pay pension dues.

What did the court decide?

State directed to pay salary difference for suspension period; compute and pay salary arrears and arrears of pension plus other terminal dues.

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Dr.Mahesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.52 of 2011

¶3

¶4

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 535 of 2003

¶5

With

¶6

Interlocutory Application No.280 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No.281 of 2011

¶7

¶8

Letters Patent Appeal No.52 of 2011

¶9

======================================================

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

The Secretary, Primary Secondary and Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶12

The Director Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna.

¶13

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

¶14

The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

¶15

The Block Development Officer, Sakara, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

¶16

.... .... Respondents-Appellants

¶17

Versus

¶18

Dr.Mahesh Chandra Ray Sharma S/o Late Binoda Roy Sharma R/o Village Balua, P.O. Raini Via T.C.A. Dholi, P.S. Sakara, District Muzaffarpur.

¶19

.... .... Petitioner-Respondent

¶20

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. R.K.Sharma, A.C. to S.C.-27 For the Respondent : Mr. Girish Nandan Pd. Singh, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash Sharma, Advocate ======================================================

¶21

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

and

¶23

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER

¶24

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

Patna High Court LPA No.52 of 2011 (6) dt.16-07-2012

¶26

2 / 4

¶27

6. 16-07-2012 Interlocutory Application No.281 of 2011:

¶28

The delay of 126 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

¶29

Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

¶30

Letters Patent Appeal No.52 of 2011:

¶31

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12^th July 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 535 of 2003, the respondents State of Bihar and others have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

¶32

Matter at issue is the punishment of ‘Censure’ imposed upon the writ petitioner on 5^th December 2002 and the direction that for the period of suspension from service the writ petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit other than the subsistence allowance.

¶33

The writ petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in Shri Baliram High School, Sakara, Muzaffarpur, was charged for unruly behaviour and the unparliamentary language used by him in a training camp on 26^th March 2001. It was also alleged that he instigated the other employees to boycott the election process and for violation of the provisions contained in Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. The charge was not supported by any evidence. The Enquiry Officer under his report recorded a finding in favour of the writ petitioner. Nevertheless, the Disciplinary Authority, by his order dated 5^th December 2002, held the writ petitioner guilty and imposed the punishment of ‘Censure’ upon the writ petitioner and directed that the writ petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit except the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension from service from 31^st July 2001. By order dated 11^th December 2002 made by the District Education

¶34

Patna High Court LPA No.52 of 2011 (6) dt.16-07-2012

¶35

3 / 4

¶36

Officer, Muzaffarpur, the order of suspension was revoked and the writ petitioner was reinstated in service. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge has upheld the challenge to the order of punishment and has set aside the order of punishment. Therefore, this Appeal.

¶37

We are entirely in agreement with the learned single Judge. We are of the opinion that the memorandum of charge was issued against the writ petitioner without application of mind and without supporting evidence. In any case there cannot be violation of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution by an individual delinquent. In absence of any evidence the writ petitioner could not have been held guilty. The entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated as it is the case of ‘no evidence’ and also of ‘non application of mind’.

¶38

For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is dismissed in

¶39

limine.

¶40

We are informed that the writ petitioner has retired from service in 2009. The appellants State of Bihar and others are directed to calculate the amount of difference of salary for the period spent by the writ petitioner under suspension and to pay the same to the writ petitioner within six weeks from today. The appellants will also make the order of pay-fixation from the date the writ petitioner was reinstated in service after revocation of the order of suspension; will compute the arrears of salary till the date the writ petitioner retired from service and will pay the amount of arrears of salary to the writ petitioner within four months from today. The appellants will also recompute the pension and other terminal dues payable to the writ petitioner on

¶41

Patna High Court LPA No.52 of 2011 (6) dt.16-07-2012

¶42

4 / 4

¶43

the basis of the last pay as may be recomputed under this order. Such exercise will be completed and the arrears of pension and other terminal dues will be paid to the writ petitioner within eight months from today.

¶44

Registry will send copy of this order to the appellants forthwith.

¶45

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶46

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶47

Pawan/-

The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Dr.Mahesh Chandra Ray Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Dr.Mahesh Chandra Ray Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bihar State Housing Board Vs Shashi Kumar Sinha and Ors.

Arbind Kumar Jha Vs the Lalit Narayan Mithila Univ

Munisha Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Danial Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Baliram Singh Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Santosh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.