Disposed

Deepak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Feb 2018CWJC/6857/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged failure to reinstate him after termination on sexual harassment allegations, despite an order directing a committee inquiry and suspension. Court observed respondent must ensure its 05.12.2014 order is implemented and disposed of writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to bring non-compliance of order dated 05.12.2014 to State's notice for disposal.

Deepak Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 6857 of 2015

¶2

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

¶3

Deepak Kumar, son of Sri Ram Prasad Lal, Resident of At + P.O.- Salha (Jandaha), P.S.- Deshri, Sub Division- Mahnar, District- Vaishali

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶6

The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Chief Executive Officer, Jeevika, Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Raod, Patna.

¶8

The Director, Jeevika Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Raod, Patna.

¶9

The District Project Manager, Jeevika Biscoman Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan Patna.

¶10

The Administrative Officer, Jeevika, Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Raod, Patna.

¶11

That State Project Manger (HR), Jeevika, Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Raod, Patna.

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s Kunal Tiwary, Aniket Singh & Anupam Raj, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr Sumant Kr Sinha, AC to GA 2

¶14

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

Date: 21-02-2018

¶17

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-

¶18

State.

¶19

2 The petitioner, while working as Block Project Manager in Jeevika, was leveled with some allegations relating to sexual harassment. Pursuant thereto, he has been terminated on 08.11.2014. It is his case that he represented before the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar (respondent No 2) who, vide his order dated 05.12.2014 (Annexure 9) directed the Chief Executive Officer –cum- Director of State Mission, BRLPS to

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.6857 of 2015 dt.21-02-2018

¶21

2/3

¶22

constitute a Three Members Committee to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner and to submit a report so that appropriate action may be taken in accordance with law. While directing so, it is the petitioner’s case that the Secretary has directed that, in the meantime, the order of termination against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. He submits that pursuant to the said order neither Three Members Committee had been constituted nor he has been allowed the benefits of the said order by reinstating him since the termination order has been kept in abeyance.

¶23

3 About three years have elapsed since filing of the writ petition, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State as yet. What is the present position is not apparent on record? Therefore, this Court, instead of keeping the matter pending further, would only observe that it is the Secretary (respondent No 2) who has to take appropriate action by ensuring that the order dated 05.12.2014 issued by him is given effect to.

¶24

4 Counsel for the petitioner submits that he will bring it to the notice of respondent No 2 so that appropriate orders may be passed pursuant to the said order dated 05.12.2014.

¶25

5 In view of the aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to bring to the notice of respondent No 2 the fact that the order dated 05.12.2014 is not being

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.6857 of 2015 dt.21-02-2018

¶27

3/3

¶28

complied with by the subordinate authorities.

¶29

6 If such representation is filed, it is needless to say that

¶30

respondent No 2 would be obliged to dispose of the same in

¶31

accordance with law.

¶32

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶33

M.E.H. /-

¶34

AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 22.02.2018 Transmission NA Date

Deepak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak 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

Anju Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Vishwanath Singh Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Awadhesh Kumar Dubey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Birbal Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Mukesh Thakur@Mukesh Kumar Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar