Quashed

Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Nov 2017CWJC/14837/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed the petitioner's suspension order which remained inoperative for over two years without conclusion of departmental proceedings. It directed respondents to conclude proceedings within five months or terminate them, and to pay subsistence allowance within one month.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order quashed; proceedings to be concluded within five months or lapse; subsistence allowance to be paid within one month.

Manoj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14837 of 2017

¶2

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

¶3

Manoj Kumar, Son of Punai Sharma, Resident of Village- Lakhapur, P.S.Oina, P.S.- Parasbigha, District- Jehanabad.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Director, Primary Education Officer, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.

¶9

The District Education Officer, Jehanabad.

¶10

The District Programme Officer, Establishment (Jehanabad).

¶11

The Block Development Officer Ratni Faridpur, Jehanabad.

¶12

The Block Education Officer, Ratni Faridpur (Jehanabad).

¶13

The Block Panchayati Raj Officer Ratnifaridpur (Jehanabad).

¶14

The Pramukh Panchayat Samiti Ratnifaridpur (Jehanabad).

¶15

.... .... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar - Gp-17 Mr. S. K. Ranjan,AC to G.P.-17

¶17

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER

¶18

2 17-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is under suspension for more than two

¶19

years in contemplation of departmental proceedings.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been paid subsistence allowances and even after two years, charges have not been framed.

¶21

In the aforesaid circumstances, the court is of the view that as the departmental proceedings has not been concluded

¶22

even after two years or more the suspension order contained in

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.14837 of 2017 (2) dt.17-11-2017

¶24

2/2

¶25

(Annexure-3) is not sustainable and is accordingly hereby quashed.

¶26

The respondents are directed to conclude

¶27

departmental proceedings, if not initiated within a maximum period of five months from the receipt/production of this order, failing which the entire departmental proceedings shall come to an end. The respondents are also directed to make payment of subsistence allowances, if not paid to the petitioner during the period of suspension within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of this order.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation, the application stands

¶29

disposed of.

¶30

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶31

Ravi/-

¶32

Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Jagbir Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Ramadhar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Dr. Udai Prakash Singh and Ors.

Sachin Kumar Keshri and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Abdul Gafoor Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Randhir Kumar Singh Vs Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University and Ors.