Disposed

Upendra Thakur and Anr. v. The Administrator The B.s.r.t.c.and Ors.

Patna HC15 Apr 2013CWJC/21469/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged suspension orders under Article 226, arguing delay in disciplinary proceedings. The Court directed the respondents to conclude proceedings within eight weeks, revoking suspension if not completed by then.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to conclude disciplinary proceedings within eight weeks; suspension orders to be revoked and petitioners reinstated if not completed.

Upendra Thakur and Anr. Vs The Administrator… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21469 of 2012

¶3

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

¶4

Upendra Thakur S/O Late Ram Prasad Thakur Resident of Village - Budhauli, P.S. - Bochaha, District - Muzaffarpur 2. Pramod Narain Jha S/O Late Ajab Narain Jha Resident of Village - Panchgama, P.S. - Rosara, District - Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Administrator, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Birchand Patel Path, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna, Bihar

¶5

The Chief of Administration, rhe Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Birchand Patel Path, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna, Bihar 3. The Chief of Operation, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Birchand Patel Path, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna 4. The Chief Mechanical Engineer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Birchand Patel Path, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna 5. The Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Birchand Patel Path, Muzaffarpur

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s

¶7

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jainendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶8

4 15-04-2013 Heard the parties.

¶9

The two petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the office order no. 1061 dated 15.9.2010 and office order no. 1060 dated 15.9.2010, both issued under the signature of the respondent Administrator of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (in short Corporation), whereby the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively have been put under suspension in contemplation of the department proceeding.

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.21469 of 2012 (4) dt.15-04-2013

¶11

2/3

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though more than two years have elapsed since the date of the impugned orders of suspension was passed against the petitioners, yet departmental proceeding has not been concluded till date. Therefore, according to him, on the ground of delay itself, orders of suspension are liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶13

A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating there in para-4 that now by the memo no. 29 dated 4.1.2013 and memo no. 28 dated 4.1.2013 both issued under the signature of the Chief of Administration of the respondent-Corporation (respondent no. 2), disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against both the petitioners. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were put under suspension under the provisions of the Standing Orders dated 31.1.1986, issued under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Order No. 23 of the Standing Orders does not prescribe any time limit for keeping an employee under suspension, but he can be kept under suspension till the final disposal of the disciplinary proceeding. However, as per the Order No. 24 of the said Standing Orders a disciplinary proceeding is required to be concluded within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the service of the

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.21469 of 2012 (4) dt.15-04-2013

¶15

3/3

¶16

charge sheet.

¶17

After having heard the parties and taking into consideration the materials available on record as well as the provisions of the Standing Orders dated 31.1.1986, this Court directs the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall co-operate for an early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. However, if the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners are not concluded within the aforesaid period of eight weeks, then the impugned orders of suspension shall stand revoked and the petitioners shall stand reinstated in service with effect from that date with all benefits.

¶18

This writ petition stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.

¶19

RPS/-

¶20

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Upendra Thakur and Anr. v. The Administrator The B.s.r.t.c.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Thakur and Anr. v. The Administrator The B.s.r.t.c.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Nandan Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Madhukar Lal Karn Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Suresh Prasad Mishra Vs The Zonal Manager Uco Bank and Anr.

Fulena Prasad Singh Vs The Bihar State Power holding Company Limted and Ors.

Yogendra Prasad Sahu Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Chandramani Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.