The Court held that the High Court's stay order superseded formal departmental orders. The petitioner's defence that he implemented a Court order was accepted to defeat gross illegality in the enquiry report.
Respondents directed to pass final orders in departmental proceeding within four weeks of receiving the order.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11004 of 2012
====================================================== Dr.Vijay Kumar Prasad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh Aag7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 02-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the enquiry report dated 6.1.2012 submitted in a departmental proceeding initiated against him during service, but continued under Rule-43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Dr. Nirmal Kumar Singh was suspended and filed C.W.J.C. No.13480/09. On 12.1.2010 the Court directed status quo ante. The petitioner in his capacity as a Civil Surgeon passed appropriate orders in terms of the directions of the Court on 22.1.2010. He informed the authorities also who subsequently recalled the suspension of Dr. Nirmal Kumar Singh on 22.6.2010. A charge memo was issued to him on 26.4.2011 for indiscipline by issuance of letter dated 22.1.2010 without departmental approval.
If the petitioner acted pursuant to the orders of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11004 of 2012 (2) dt.02-07-2012
2
Court, he committed no illegality. He took this defence in his reply to the charges. The enquiry report annexed to the second show cause notice given to him does not consider this very crucial defence of his and therefore the enquiry report itself suffers from gross illegality when it fails to consider an extremely relevant defence. The Court may therefore set aside the enquiry report.
Learned counsel for the State submits that if the petitioner had participated in the departmental proceedings and the proceedings appear on the verge of conclusion directions may be issued for concluding the departmental proceeding at an early date.
Prima facie, the facts, as presented, appear to be that one Dr. Nirmal Kumar Singh was suspended. This Court on 12.1.2010 directed:- “In the meantime, petitioner will not be disturbed and the status quo as existing before issuance of suspension order shall be maintained by the parties”.
Reading the order reasonably and prudently, it leads to only one conclusion that for all purposes the order of suspension was stayed. If that be so, the petitioner being the controlling authority of Dr. Nirmal Kumar Singh and also Respondent No.7 in the writ petition appears to have acted only in implementation of the impugned order. Once the Court pronounces on an issue, the order of the Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.11004 of 2012 (2) dt.02-07-2012
3
has to be implemented by one and all concerned, especially when they are parties to the litigation. Any bureaucratic procedure or ministerial act to be performed by issuance of any formal order by the authorities in pursuance of an order of a Court does not override or supersede the order of the Court to the extent that the order of the Court shall not remain unoperational till the ministerial act is not performed. Such an interpretation shall be rendering Court orders a futility and nugatory.
If the Court stayed the suspension on 12.1.2010, the subsequent order by the authorities on 22.6.2010 was a ministerial act. The defence of the petitioner is that he acted in implementation of the Court order in a writ petition which impleaded him as a respondent also. He was also the controlling authority.
Let the respondents pass final appropriate orders in the departmental proceeding within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
The writ application stands disposed.
(Navin Sinha, J)
K.C.jha/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether departmental enquiry report fails to consider a crucial defence regarding implementation of a stay order?
Whether petitioner acted without illegality in issuing recall order pursuant to Court direction?
Dr. Vijay Kumar Prasad
The State Of Bihar
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
