Bindeshwari Narayan Bhatt vs The State of Bihar and Others

Aftab Alam, J.—Heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned Counsel appearing in support of this writ petition.

On hearing him it appears that the real object behind this case is quite different the innocuous reliefs prayed for in Petition.

The Petitioner is an employee of the (sic) School Examination Board and he is writ petition praying for directions Respondent authorities to allow him increments which are stopped from and to grant him the second time promotion. But in course of argue was revealed that the real object (sic) get the disciplinary proceeding that remains pending against the (sic).

The annual increments of the Petitioner were stopped in the year 1991 and was also not given the second time promotion. The Petitioner tries to tell Court that the denial of annual increments and time bound promotion to him because the Board was acting in a (sic)tely arbitrary and unreasonable (sic). But the fact of the matter is that (sic) a disciplinary proceeding against (sic)at remains unconcluded.

On 20.9.1991 the Petitioner was consider suspension in contemplation of a (sic)pary action. The charges against (sic)are of a very serious nature and to his illegal acts to help sixty two (sic)ires of the Annual Secondary Examination, 1991 in getting their results pub-muthorisedly.

On materially the same charges a (sic) case was also instituted against Petitioner for offences punishable under sections of the Penal Code.

Two years later the Petitioner was from suspension by order, dated 93 with the express stipulation that disciplinary proceeding against him (sic)amain subsisting. However, the disciplinary proceeding under contemplation been initiated and till date he has been given any charge sheet. The reason for this, presumably, is the fact that the criminal case remains pending. As is not uncommon in this State, investigation seems to have become interminable and the police has not been able to submit a final report even after 11 years. The authorities in the Board in their turn appear to be quite reticent about initiating the disciplinary proceeding for fear of an objection by the Petitioner that that would compromise his defence in the criminal case and in this situation the matter rests at that stage.

In these facts and circumstances this Court made a pointed query to the counsel for the Petitioner as to whether he was willing to give an assurance that he would not raise an objection against the disciplinary proceeding on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. The Court made in clear that if the Petitioner was willing to give this assurance, the Court might consider directing the competent authority in the Board to initiate and conclude the disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner within two or three months. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, will not settle for anything less than an outright quashing of the charges and the disciplinary proceeding.

Mr. Dinu Kumar submitted that it was no longer open to the Board to initiate a proceeding on the charges which were now 11 years old. He also relied upon some decisions in support of his submissions.

It is indeed true that normally the Courts discourage any disciplinary action on old and stale charges but that is not due to any statutory bar but on principles of equity, reasonableness, and fairness. In this case, however, I fail to see any equity or fairness on the side of the Petitioner. Having regard to the grave nature of charges and further having regard to the Petitioner''s attitude before this Court I am not inclined to pass an order, quashing the disciplinary proceeding pending against him and in the facts and circumstances of the case I would rather not exercise my discretion under Article 226 in favour of the Petitioner.

This writ petition is dismissed.

This order is being passed in presence of Mr. S.D. Yadav, counsel for the Board.