A writ petition challenging the dispensation with services by the Manager, Bettiah Estate, for violation of natural justice. The Court held that cancellation without a show-cause notice was unsustainable.
Letter no. 142 dated 9.6.2016 is quashed and matter is remanded to take into account all factors after giving notice of hearing.
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.10611 of 2016
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Adv. For the Bettiah Raj : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Resp. 2 to 4 : Mr. S. Singh, Adv. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-07-2019
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this case, the petitioners are challenging the order contained in letter no. 142 dated 9.6.2016 passed by the Manager, Bettiah Raj, whereby and whereunder, the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with.
The petitioners have some past history of litigation as they already came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3689 of 2005 and the Court had remanded the matter back for fresh consideration without disclosing the mind of the court with regard to the merit of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10611 of 2016 dt.10-07-2019 2/4
the case, whereupon, the Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 15.4.2007 took a view of regularization on compassionate ground but, various facts taken into consideration, not necessary to be narrated in the present application and, later on, the Manager, Bettiah Raj has given his own interpretation vide Memo No. 53 dated 23.4.2007 and promoted the petitioner to the Class-3 post. Though the petitioners were appointed on a Class-4 post but, the promotion has been granted by the Manager, Bettiah Raj and, that too, without approval of the Board of Revenue. It further appears from the order passed in the case of Suresh Raut, the present petitioners and others, the Manager, Bettiah Raj vide order dated 9.6.2016 has found that they cannot be allowed to function either on Class-3 or the Class-4 post and canceled the engagement of these petitioners.
A short point has been raised by the petitioners that admittedly, wrongly or rightly, they were appointed on Class-4 post, later on, promoted to the Class-3 post in the year 2007 and the Manager has taken a decision after long delay of nine years vide impugned order dated 9.6.2016, natural justice demands, before the petitioners could be visited with the adverse order for dispensing with the service of the petitioners, at least, a show-
Patna High Court CWJC No.10611 of 2016 dt.10-07-2019 3/4
cause should have been served but, even that has not been followed in the present case.
The State has tried to justify the action of the Manager, Bettiah Raj having stated that Manager misconstrued the letter of the Member Board of Revenue dated 5.4.2007 (Annexure-6) and granted promotion to the post without approval of the Board of Revenue but, the State has failed to show that any letter or showcause was served upon the petitioners.
Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is not giving any opinion on the merit of the present case as already some historical facts have been attached to this case about engagement and promotion, twice they have come to this Court and this Court has passed the order remanding back for consideration by the authority concerned but, this time also, the Manager, without issuing notice and asking show-cause, straightway canceled the appointment of the petitioners which cannot be allowed to sustain.
Accordingly, the letter no. 142 dated 9.6.2016 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to take into account all factors and, after giving notice of hearing to the petitioners, will take a decision in accordance with law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10611 of 2016 dt.10-07-2019 4/4
Any payment will be made subject to result of the
proceeding to be conducted by the competent authority.
In the result, this writ application stands allowed to the
extent indicated above.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
rishi/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 15.07.2019 |
| Transmission Date |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Manager could cancel the engagement of petitioners without issuing a show-cause notice.
Whether the writ petition should be allowed given the procedural violation of natural justice.
What order should be passed after quashing and remanding the matter for adherence to legal procedure.
Suresh Rout
Birendra Mahto
The State of Bihar
The Member Board of Revenue cum Court of Ward, Bettiah Estate
The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Bihar
The Manager, Bettiah Estate
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
