Dismissed

The State of Bihar v. Ajit Narain Singh

Patna HC16 Feb 2024L.P.A/34/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the termination of a police constable. The High Court held that a domestic inquiry was warranted given the respondent's long period of service (1996-2003) and dismissed the appeal regarding the competence of the initial appointing authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed by the Single Judge were dismissed. Application for condonation of delay allowed.

The State of Bihar Vs Ajit Narain Singh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.34 of 2021

¶2

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8739 of 2003

¶4

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

¶5

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶6

The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

Inspector General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Government of Bihar, Magadh Range, Gaya.

¶9

Superintendent of Police, Nawadah

¶10

Superintendent of Police Sheikhpura.

¶11

... ... Appellant/s

¶12

Versus

¶13

Ajit Narain Singh Son of Gobardhan Singh Resident of Vilalge- Alipur Dih, Police Station-Parbalpur, District-Nalanda Erstwhile Constable No.89 Previously Posted as Constable in Police Line in Sheikhpura Police.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr.Sonu Kumar, Advocate Mr.Shashi Priya, Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

¶17

Date : 16-02-2024

¶18

Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2021

¶19

Heard I.A. No. 1 of 2021 for condonation of delay in filing LPA. Sufficient cause has not made out in the application and affidavit, to condone delay of 2 years 39 days in filing the present LPA, however, in the interest of State of Bihar and certain period covers under COVID-19 period, we proceed to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2021 stands allowed.

¶20

Patna High Court L.P.A No.34 of 2021 dt.16-02-2024 2/3

¶21

With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the present LPA is taken up for final disposal. Core issue involved in the present lis is whether respondent – Ajit Narain Singh after appointment to the post of constable on 19.06.1996 read with termination on 14.07.2023 is in order or not?

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appointment of the respondent – Ajit Narain Singh to the post of constable is contrary to rules of recruitment governing the post of constable as on 19.06.1996. Therefore, question of holding inquiry is not attracted. Consequently, learned Single Judge has committed error in allowing CWJC No. 8739 of 2003 decided on 28.08.2018.

¶23

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent resisted the aforementioned contention and supported the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.08.2018 passed in CWJC No. 8739 of 2003.

¶24

Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.

¶25

Perusal of the records, it is evident that appellants have not initiated disciplinary proceedings to the extent that selection and appointment of respondent - Ajit Narain Singh was contrary to rules of recruitment. Domestic inquiry is warranted for the reasons that respondent has discharged the duties of the post of constable from 19.06.1996 till the date of termination on

¶26

Patna High Court L.P.A No.34 of 2021 dt.16-02-2024 3/3

¶27

14.07.2003. In other words, he has lien over the constable post in the light of the fact that he has worked during the intervening period from 1996 to 2003.

¶28

Therefore, formal domestic inquiry was warranted before taking any action and it has not been resorted on behalf of the appellant. Taking take of the above issue we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.08.2018 passed in CWJC No. 8739 of 2003.

¶29

Learned counsel for appellants submitted that initial appointment of respondent was not by the competent authority. Therefore, inquiry was not warranted. If it is by an incompetent authority action should have been taken at the earliest in the year 1996. No action had been taken against such authority who has selected and appointed respondent for these many years.

¶30

Accordingly, the present LPA No. 34 of 2021 stands dismissed.

¶31

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

¶32

( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶33

abhishekkr/-

¶34

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	20.02.2024
Transmission Date	NA

The State of Bihar v. Ajit Narain Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Bihar v. Ajit Narain Singh

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

The State of Bihar Vs Rajeev Ranjan Satsangi

Bishwanath Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar through Sri Pratyaya Amrit

Ravi Shankar Kumar Vs The Union of India

Mantu Kumar Vs Bihar Rajya dwara Zila Padadhikari

Ram Kisun Sah, Vs Manoj Kumar Rai

Uma Shankar Singh Vs The State of Bihar.