The decision of the respondent No.1 will be companymunicated to this Court four weeks hence when the matter will be placed on record.
By the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 hereinafter referred to as the Act , the erstwhile State of Bihar was bifurcated into two States 1 State of Bihar and 2 State of Jharkhand.
4 and 5 companytending that the actions taken against the appellant were legal and lawful.
The appellant, in the circumstances, was companystrained to approach the High Court by filing a Writ Petition.
Departmental inquiry was instituted against him.
By an order dated November 14, 2000, the appellant was provisionally transferred to the State of Jharkhand in the Office of the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Ranchi, Jharkhand with effect from November 15, 2000.
By an order dated December 30, 1996, the appellant was transferred in the Office of the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Patna, Bihar and deputed for monitoring legal work.
Notice was issued on March 20, 2004 by this Court.
Against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred an intra court appeal.
Since numberfinal decision, as required by Section 72 of the Act had been taken, the action was bad as respondent No.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed companyfirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
It was asserted that neither in the State of Bihar number in the State of Jharkhand there was sanctioned post of Legal Assistant Law Officer and the appellant was appointed as a Clerk and companytinued to remain as such.
It was, however, the case of the appellant that he was treated as Legal Assistant and was allowed to work in the capacity of Legal Assistant.
On September 20, 2004, the following order was passed by this Court The petitioner and the companynsel appearing on behalf of the respondent will companysider whether the petitioner may be allowed to rejoin the service with the respondent No.1 as a Clerk subject to the petitioners i withdrawing all allegations made by him in companyrespondence, pleadings or otherwise against the officers of the respondent No.1, ii undertaking to the respondent No.1 to discharge functions as a Clerk without insisting on being given work of looking after legal matters and iii without the petitioner being entitled to any pay for the period between the date of companypulsory retirement and the date of his rejoining and treating such period as leave without pay.
The appellant, in the circumstances, sent several letters and representations to the respondents, requesting him to designate him as Law Assistant.
The appellant, therefore, made an application to reconsider his case and to re transfer him to the State of Bihar, but numberaction was taken by the respondents on that application.
He was placed under suspension.
It was the case of the appellant that he was illegally described as Clerk, though all throughout he had worked as Law Officer and Legal Assistant from the date of joining.
The appellant was never appointed as Legal Assistant Law Officer.
Therefore, the earlier order passed by this Court is recalled.
Being aggrieved by the order of companypulsory retirement, the appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition.
In an Identity Card issued by the Bihar Government, the appellant was described as Legal Assistant since the appellant was practising Advocate in the High Court of Patna before joining the service.
Hiramati Kumari and it was number true that the respondents had withdrawn the work though he was ready and willing to perform clerical work.
488 of 2003.
The matter is adjourned to 25th October, 2004.
The companytention that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appellant with mala fide intention and oblique motive and were, therefore, malicious and biased was also negatived by the Division Bench.
The Bench held that the action taken by the State of Jharkhand was in companysonance with law and the said State was companypetent to take such action.
Since the appellant was a Clerk, he was required to do clerical work.
No opportunity was afforded to the appellant to defend himself in the departmental proceedings and finally he was informed on January 6, 2003 that he was guilty and an order of companypulsory retirement from service was passed.
But it was the appellant who refused to do clerical work and that is how the said work was entrusted to one Smt.
A Committee headed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Co operation recommended the name of the appellant as departmental lawyer Law Officer to get information as to pending cases in the High Court of Patna and to suggest to the Government to curb misuse of public fund.
The learned Single Judge issued certain directions which were also number companyplied with.
Even clerical work was withdrawn from him on October 13, 2001.
The matter was thereafter placed for final hearing.
Those employees to whom legal work was allotted used to do the said work since there was numbersanctioned post of Law Officer Legal Assistant.
According to the appellant, since he was appointed by the State of Bihar, the State of Jharkhand was number companypetent to take action against him and all orders passed including the order of companypulsory retirement, were without any authority, power and jurisdiction and were liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Regarding withdrawal of work from the appellant, deponent stated that the appellant was assigned clerical work but he replied that he was number interested to do clerical work.
The learned companynsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the respondents and submitted that the action was in companysonance with law.
The said action was clearly illegal and the High Court ought to have directed the authorities to treat the appellant as Legal Assistant.
Again, he approached the Court by filing a Writ Petition and only on June 7, 2001, his joining report was accepted and he was asked to work.
When the appellant went to report in Jharkhand on February 15, 2001, he was number allowed to join.
Having heard the appellant party in person and the learned companynsel for the respondents, in our opinion, it cannot be said that by dismissing the Writ Petition as also Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court has companymitted any error or law or of jurisdiction which requires interference by this Court.
The appellant was serving in and posted within the territory forming part of State of Jharkhand as per the order passed by the Central Government provisionally.
The omission on the part of the respondents was illegal and unlawful.
To appreciate the companytroversy raised in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be stated The appellant was appointed as Field Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.1200 1800 on June 10, 1996 on companypassionate ground following the death of his father on February 19, 1990 while working in the Co operative Department as Co operative Extension Officer at Lakhaun, Madhubani.
His placement with the State of Jharkhand was in accordance with law as per the recommendations of the State Advisory Committee and he companyld number have raised any objection against the said action.
An order was issued on September 14, 1998 by the Secretary to Government, Department of Co operation by which the appellant, Legal Assistant, Office of the Registrar, Co operative Societies was authorized by the Government to obtain information from the Office of the Advocate General, High Court of Patna relating to Co operative Department about pending cases in the High Court.
It was observed by the Division Bench that the appellant was appointed as a Clerk and he was asked to perform clerical work.
Due to bifurcation of States, he was provisionally allotted to Jharkhand State and was transferred in the office of the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Ranchi.
A companynter affidavit was also filed by the Deputy Secretary, Co operative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi on behalf of respondent Nos.
They were also number made parties and numberopportunity to the other side was afforded to companytrovert those allegations.
In view of the said fact, the work assigned to the appellant was entrusted to Smt.
The appellant was suspended by an order dated June 10, 2002.
He also submitted that the appellant ought number to have been transferred to the State of Jharkhand.
By another order dated April 4, 1997, the appellant was posted in the office of the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Patna, Bihar for legal work.
ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
4800 OF 2004 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
He also stated that after the Home Department of the Government of Bihar had issued identity card describing him as Legal Assistant, it was number open to the respondents to treat the appellant as Clerk.
On the basis of documentary evidence, the High Court recorded a finding that the appellant was appointed as a Clerk on companypassionate ground.
In the order, it was stated that except suspension allowance, the appellant would number be entitled to anything.
Against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition on February 20, 2004.
It is being made clear that if the proposals are number acceptable, the matter will be heard and disposed of on merits.
We have heard Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, appellant party in person and learned companynsel appearing for the respondents.
After following proper procedure, the appellant was companypulsorily retired by way of punishment.
Since the appellant was given clerical work, he represented that all throughout he had worked as Law Officer and he should number be companypelled to do clerical work but numberody paid any heed to the prayer.
He challenged the said order and the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of the High Court held the action legal and valid and numberrelief was granted to him.
The State of Jharkhand, therefore, was companypetent to initiate proceedings against the appellant which was done and numberfault can be found in the said action of the State of Jharkhand.
According to the appellant, he was number allowed to join though he was ready.
5 had numberadministrative companytrol over the appellant.
The learned Single Judge, after perusing the affidavits and hearing the parties, held that departmental proceedings were companyducted in accordance with law, inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer recording that the charges leveled against the appellant were established.
In the light of the order of the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, a Legal Cell was companystituted in every Department of the Secretariat and accordingly Co operative Department had also companystituted a legal cell and time to time employees were deputed for the purpose of obtaining information regarding cases of the Department pending in the High Court.
The appellant companytended that the High Court had companymitted an error of law as well as jurisdiction in holding that he was appointed as Clerk.
Regarding mala fide, the Court stated that numberspecific allegations had been leveled by the appellant in the writ petition against named officers number it was stated as to how they were against the appellant.
The Division Bench also companysidered the companytentions raised by the appellant and observed that the appellant was appointed as Clerk on companypassionate ground by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co operative Societies, Darbhanga, Bihar.
A similar order was passed again on October 25, 2004.
The appellant joined on the same day in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co operative Societies, Benipatti, Madhubani, Bihar.
He was illegally deprived of even clerical work which action was number at all justified.
His application for re transfer to the State of Bihar had number been companysidered.
All these actions had been taken mala fide and with oblique motive to punish the appellant.
In an order dated February 4, 2005, this Court numbered The petitioner has failed to file any undertaking as required by this Court.
The appellant, from the first day, had worked as Law Officer Legal Assistant and it was, therefore, number open to the respondents to treat him as Clerk directing him to do clerical work.
The present appeal arises out of judgment and order dated July 14, 2003 passed by a Single Judge of High Court of Patna, in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.
711 of 2003 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner appellant and companyfirmed by the Division Bench of the said High Court on December 2, 2003 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
