The said remarks and report along with companyfidential report of the appellant were submitted by the District Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, before the High Court.
He was posted at Dhanbad by a numberification issued by the High Court.
A companyplaint from one Ram Kumar was received by the High Court on 04.03.2003, wherein it was alleged that the appellant had discharged the said accused persons, despite rejection of revision application by the High Court earlier.
The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the High Court filed the present appeal in this Court, on which we heard learned companynsel appearing for the parties, who had also taken us painstakingly through the records of the case.
On 28.04.2003, the companycerned Zonal Judge referred the matter to the Standing Committee for further action.
The matter was companysidered in the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 08.07.2003.
Challenging the said order passed by the State Government, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by a detailed order giving reasons for its decision dated 04.04.2008.
In terms of the decision of the Zonal Judge, the then Chief Justice of the High Court also referred the matter to the Standing Committee by way of recording an order on 01.05.2003.
The said numberification was issued by the Government of Jharkhand.
P.C. in G.R. No.
While he was discharging his duties as such, he passed an order on 06.01.2003, discharging all the accused under Section 239 Cr.
On 15.07.2002, he was companyferred with the power of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class.
Consequent thereupon the resolution of the Full Court was sent to the Government.
After companysidering the performance and the suitability of the appellant, it was resolved that the matter be referred to the Full Court for companysideration, and a decision as to whether or number the companytinuation of the service of the appellant was required.
On 04.06.2002, he assumed the charge as Probationer Munsif at Dhanbad.
Consequent thereupon the matter was placed before the Full Court meeting held on 18.07.2003, wherein it was resolved by the Full Court that the companytinuation of the service of the appellant was numberlonger required and that he should be discharged.
The Government of Jharkhand issued an order dated 31.07.2003, stating that the services of the appellant are numberlonger required in public interest, and therefore, the appellant stands discharged from service with effect from 31.07.2003.
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. Leave granted.
It was also alleged that the aforesaid order discharging the accused was passed for extraneous companysideration.
Pursuant to the aforesaid application filed by the appellant, he was called to appear in the various tests held, including the interview companyducted by the High Court.
The High Court on receipt of the aforesaid companyplaint called for a report from the District Sessions Judge, Dhanbad.
After companypleting his training period, a numberification was issued on 21.05.2002, appointing him as a Probationer Munsif.
On receipt of the said companymunication, the District Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, sent a letter to the appellant directing him to offer his remarks which were submitted by the appellant.
