Dismissed

Bhojpur Zila Parisad and Ors. v. Ram Kripal Bhagat and Ors.

Patna HC12 Aug 2016L.P.A/891/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an interlocutory application condoning delay in filing an appeal. However, regarding the Letters Patent Appeal challenging a dismissal order for Bigamous Marriage, the Court distinguished a Supreme Court precedent due to the long lapse of time and the employee's retirement, holding the dismissal as harsh punishment and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory application for condonation of delay allowed; Letters Patent Appeal dismissed finding dismissal order harsh.

Bhojpur Zila Parisad and Ors. Vs Ram Kripal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.891 of 2015

¶3

Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12914 of 2013 Arising out of

¶4

Interlocutory Application No.3755 of 2015

¶5

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

¶6

Bhojpur Zila Parisad at Ara through its Chief Executive Officer.

¶7

The Dy. Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Bhojpur Zila Parisad, Ara.

¶8

The Chairman, Bhojpur Zila Parisad, Ara.

¶9

.... .... Respondents-Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Ram Kripal Bhagat, son of Late Mangru Bhagat, Resident of Village & P.O.Parev, P.S.- Bihta, Distt- Patna.

¶12

…. Petitioner-Respondent 1^st Set.

¶13

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar.

¶14

The Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar.

¶15

The Director, Panchayat Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar.

¶16

.... .... Respondents –Respondents 2^nd Set. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents-State : Mr. Md. Irshad, A. C. to S.C.-1

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶19

And

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA)

¶23

Date: 12-08-2016

¶24

Re.: Interlocutory Application No.3755 of 2015

¶25

The application is for condonation of delay of 54 days in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶26

For the reasons mentioned in the application, we find that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing of the present Letters

¶27

Patna High Court LPA No.891 of 2015 dt.12-08-2016

¶28

2/3

¶29

Patent Appeal.

¶30

Interlocutory Application stands allowed accordingly.

¶31

Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No.891 of 2015

¶32

The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 12^th of January, 2015 whereby, the order of punishment of dismissal was set aside. The order of dismissal was on account of the second marriage of the writ petitioner-respondent no.1 herein which he solemnized 36 years before the departmental proceedings were initiated against him on a complaint made by the first wife.

¶33

The learned Single Bench found the punishment to be totally disproportionate and harsh in view of the fact that the allegations have been made after long lapse of time, therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Chief Executive Officer who was directed to pass an order considering the nature of misconduct committed by the writ petitioner and also in what manner, the first wife can be compensated.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants refers to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khursheed Ahmad Khan Versus State of U. P. & Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 439 to contend that solemnizing the second marriage during the life time of first wife is a misconduct for which action can be taken against the employee

¶35

Patna High Court LPA No.891 of 2015 dt.12-08-2016

¶36

3/3

¶37

irrespective of his religious faith.

¶38

The said judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the proceedings were initiated against the employee soon after the employee solemnized second marriage in the year 2005. In the present case, the complaint was made after 36 years of marriage. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that respondent no.1 has since retired. Therefore, the order of dismissal for misconduct in terms of the Conduct Rule, which has taken place 36 years back, has rightly been found to be harsh punishment.

¶39

In view of the said fact, we do not find any merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶40

(Hemant Gupta, J.)

¶41

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

¶42

Sunil/-

¶43

AFR/NAFR
CAVDATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	19.08.2016
Transmission Date

Bhojpur Zila Parisad and Ors. v. Ram Kripal Bhagat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhojpur Zila Parisad and Ors. v. Ram Kripal Bhagat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moni Bricks Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

M/s Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Awas Bricks Udyog Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ramesh Prasad Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Ram Pati Das and Anr.

Bishwanath Sah @ Biswa Nath Sah Vs The Union Of India and Ors.