Rang Bahadur Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

J.C.S. Rawat, J.—This writ petition has been filed for seeking relief by way of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.6.2004 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No. 10 i.e. the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar by which the punishment order against the Petitioner has been passed by way of stoppage of three annual increments, censure and no payment of salary during the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance; the Petitioner was further debarred from working in accounts in future.

It is admitted case of the parties that the Petitioner had been working as accountant in the State of Jharkhand after creation of the State on or from 15th November, 2010. He was an employee of the State of Bihar, prior to the creation of the State of Jharkhand. The Enquiry Officer, by way of Annexure-7, submitted the enquiry report to the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Patna, Bihar on 26.5.2000 (prior to the creation of the State of Jharkhand) in which it was held that it is not clear from the record that as to whether the Petitioner was involved in the irregularities committed while purchasing the medicines in Bokaro Hospital in the State of Bihar (now in Jharkhand). The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Patna, Bihar had not taken any decision on the report till 29.6.2004. And on 29.6.2004, after the creation of the State of Jharkhand, he had taken a decision by which the aforesaid punishment order was passed by the said Respondent.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner had not been working in the State of Jharkhand after the creation of the State of Jharkhand and the Respondent no-10 has no authority to pass any kind of order by way of punishment against the employees of the State of Jharkhand in view of the provisions of Bihar Reorganization Act.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Bihar refuted the contention and contended that the Respondent No. 10 has authority over his employees even they had been working in the State of Jharkhand. Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has also supported the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and contended that the State of Bihar has no disciplinary power to take any disciplinary action against the employees who had been working in the State of Jharkhand after the creation of the State of Jharkhand.

From perusal of Section 74 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, it is clear that a person holding post or office in the State of Jharkhand shall be deemed to be appointed by the State of Jharkhand till allocated by the Central Government. Section 74 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 has a deemed provision whereunder a person who was holding post or discharging duties of any post or office in connection with the existing State of Bihar prior to November 15, 2000, on and from November 15, 2000, the successor State under which the area falls, shall be deemed on and from November 15, 2000 to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government or the appropriate authority in that successor State under whom the post and office falls. Thus, the Petitioner had not been working in the State of Jharkhand after the creation of the State of Jharkhand. Thus, by virtue of Section 74, the Petitioner would be treated to have been appointed by the State of Jharkhand.

Now, it has to be seen whether the State of Bihar or its officers had a disciplinary power over the employees working in the State of Jharkhand after 15th November, 2000. Since, the appointing authority of the employees, who had been discharging their duties in the State of Jharkhand has been changed and it has been held that these employees shall be deemed to be appointed by the State of Jharkhand till allocated. The State of Bihar loses its control over the employees working in the State of Jharkhand. Thus, the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority would be the State of Jharkhand, not the State of Bihar. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Patna, Bihar has no power to award punishment to the Petitioner as he was not the appointing and disciplinary authority of the Petitioner. The State of Bihar had the only option if he had any material Petitioner, who by virtue of Section 74 of the Bihar Reorganization Act had been serving in the State of Jharkhand, the said material would have been transmitted to the State of Jharkhand for taking necessary action in the matter.

This Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Arvind Vijay Bilung and Anr. 2002(1) 404 Jharkhand Cases Reporter as held in paragraph-12 as under:

"In such a situation and in such a background, where the State is carved out of an existing State, the cooperation between the two States becomes meaningful. If, therefore, the State of Bihar has, in its possession, any material against a Government servant who, by virtue of Section 74 of the Act, is now in the service of the State of Jharkhand and if the State of Bihar thinks that such material warrants initiation of an action against such a person, it is open to the State of Bihar to forward such material to the State of Jharkhand for such action as it considered appropriate by the State of Jharkhand. Let it be very clearly understood that only role of the erstwhile State in such a situation is merely to pass on the information or the relevant material to the State of Jharkhand and leaving the rest for the State of Jharkhand to do. Similarly would be the case for the State of Jharkhand if an employee is in a place in Bihar and if the State of Jharkhand has any material in its possession which may be required to be forwarded to the State of Bihar for appropriate action against such an employee."

In view of the forgoing reasons, I have no hesitation in observing and holding that the State of Bihar and the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Patna, Bihar had no jurisdiction to award the punishment to the Petitioner.

Accordingly, the order dated 29.6.2004 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No. 10-The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.