High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging departmental dismissal proceedings, holding that the petitioner must exhaust the statutory alternative remedy of review under Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 before approaching the Court under Article 226.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to file review petition within four weeks.
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.2125 of 2016
======================================================
Suresh Prasad Malakar Son of Late Guru Sahai Mali resident of village - Rani Hatti, P.O. Kadirganj, P.S. Nawadah, District - Nawadah
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr.Sri Krishna Ranjan For the Respondent/s : Mr.N.K. Singh, GP26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-02-2019
Writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of dismissal dated 07.09.2015 whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service. The punishment has been inflicted after a duly constituted proceedings on the basis of charge memo communicated under communication dated 25.04.2014. The allegations pertain to a period when the petitioner was a Circle Officer at Manpur.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2125 of 2016 dt.15-02-2019 2/4
against the petitioner in gross violation of the procedure and provisions contained in Rule 17 (4) and Rule 17 (14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘Bihar CCA Rules, 2005’). It is alleged that the charge memo was not in accordance with law and also that no witnesses were adduced in the course of proceedings on behalf of the department by the Presenting Officer.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2125 of 2016 dt.15-02-2019 3/4
remedy. The facts and circumstances which are relevant and to
be considered before exercising of jurisdiction under Article 226 have been reiterated time and again by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
One such judgment in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala
and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168 contains the fact as to be take into consideration. Relevant extract of para 30 of the said judgment is being reproduced here in below :
“30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is dutybound to consider whether :
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved ;
(c) the petition has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute ;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches ;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law ; and host of other factors…..”
Patna High Court CWJC No.2125 of 2016 dt.15-02-2019 4/4
remedy, and the law in this regard as considered herein above, writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner chooses to avail of the remedy of review provided under Rule 24(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, he should do so within a period of four weeks from today. In the event the same is done the authority should consider the petitioner’s memorial on its own merit without raising the objection of the same being filed by any delay.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
Prakash/-
| AFR/NAFR |
|---|
| CAV DATE |
| Uploading Date |
| Transmission Date |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 when a statutory alternative remedy of review is available.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and OthersReferred¶30
(2009) 1 SCC 168 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh Prasad Malakar
The State Of Bihar
The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
