VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the Judgment dated 14.07.2003 by the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in WP (S) No. 711 of 2003, whereby the prayer of the petitioner -appellant for quashing the order dated 06.01.2003 (Annexure 28/A to the writ petition which is Annexure 10 in this appeal) passed by respondent No. 5 Registrar, Co -operative societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi by virtue of which he was compulsorily retired by way of punishment in a disciplinary proceeding has been refused and the said writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge in para 5 of the impugned Judgment while dismissing the writ petition has observed thus : 'From perusal of the affidavits it transpire that the departmental proceeding was conducted and the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Taking into consideration that the charges against the petitioner were prima facie proved, the impugned order of compulsory retirement was issued. In the light of the facts which have not been disputed by the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner right from the date of the appointment was not fair. It is clear that since the petitioner was practicing in the Patna High Court, he wanted to continue in the said Court in the capacity of Legal Assistant although his appointment was or the post on clerk of compassionate ground. Despite his appointment as a clerk he refused to discharge the duty of a clerk. In my opinion, therefore, there is no jurisdiction in interfering with the impugned order passed by the respondents.' The fact giving rise to the writ petition, in short, is that the petitioner -appellant was initially appointed as clerk in the unrevised scale of pay of Rs. 1200 -1800 on 10.06.1996 on compassionate ground following the death of his father on 19.02.1990 while working in the Co -operative Department as Co -operative Extension Officer at Lakhaun, Madhubani by Divisional Joint Registrar, Co -operative societies, Darbhanga, Bihar and he joined as clerk on 10.06.1996 in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Benipatti, Madhubani, Bihar and he was deputed on transfer to the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna and on his joining there he was posted in the said office for discharging legal works vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition and during the period of his posting there he did discharge the job relating to legal works. As a result of the bifurcation of the State of Bihar the petitioner -appellant was transferred provisionally in the office of the Registrar, Co -operative societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi with effect from 15.11.2000 vide, Annexure A to the counter affidavit and he was described therein as clerk. He was relieved on transfer with a direction to join in the Co -operative Department of State of Jharkhand positively on 21.11.2000 vide, Annexure -B to the counter affidavit However, the petitioner appellant joined in the office of the Cooperative department on 15.02.2001. The petitioner -appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 12125 of 2000, challenging his allocation to the newly created State of Jharkhand, under the provisions of the Bihar Reorganization Act which was dismissed and against that he preferred L.P.A. No. 98 of 2001, which was disposed of observing therein having regard to the disputed facts as noticed above that it is not be possible for this. Court to decide whether the petitioner -appellant who is still holding a post of clerk (Lipik) and not substantially absorbed against any of the post of Assistant in the Secretariat can be re -allocated to the newly created State, Jharkhand and in view of the observation the Additional Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar was directed to consider this aspect and if there is any substance with the claim of the petitioner -appellant to take suitable steps in accordance with law. After joining he was allotted clerical work vide, order No. 716 dated 17.07.2001 by respondent No. 5 and the petitioner -appellant filed an application before respondent No. 5 to review his order aforesaid and in the meantime clerical work was assigned to him by the Section Officer vide, order No. 773 dated 28.07.2001, in pursuance of the order aforesaid of respondent No. 5 but the petitioner -appellant gave a reminder to respondent No. 5 in relation to his application aforesaid and, thereafter, allotted clerical work to him was withdrawn vide, order No. 1318 dated 13.10.2001. It is alleged by the petitioner - appellant that he has been working in the office of the respondent No, 5 as. Law Officer and Legal Assistant from the date of joining i.e., 15.02.2001, without any objection. The petitioner -appellant filed an 'application before respondent No. 3 for vesting him with financial power for drawing his salaiy leveling certain imputation against the officers of the Co -operative Department as a result of which an explanation was called for from him as to why a departmental proceeding against him be not initiated on charge of indiscipline, disobedience of the order of the authorities and his arrogant approach as per Annexure 17 to the writ petition and the petitioner -appellant submitted his reply in which he sought permission to file criminal cases against the officers, concerned under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code vide, Annexure 18 to the writ petition and, thereafter, the petitioner -appellant was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and during the pendency of the W.P. (S) No. 3577 of 2002, a letter was sent to him to participate in the departmental proceeding which he did not receive on the ground that departmental proceeding and judicial proceeding cannot be initiated simultaneously and the said departmental proceeding was concluded against him by the Inquiring Officer and the disciplinary authority i.e., respondent No. 5 agreeing with the finding of the Inquiring Officer compulsorily retired him from service by way of punishment.
(3.) THE case of the respondents, inter alia, is that as a result of the cadre bifurcation the service of the petitioner - appellant was placed under the State of Jharkhand under the provisions of Section 72(1), of the Bihar Reorganization Act. 2000 vide, order dated 14.11.2000 wherein he has been shown as clerk (Lipik) and his deputation for working as Law Officer/Legal Assistant by the order of the Co -operative Department. Government of Bihar, Patna does not create any right to the petitioner -appellant to be deputed in the similar position and status in the Jharkhand State and his joining was accepted as clerk during the pendency of C.W.J. C. No. 225Q, of 2001, and he was entrusted to do the clerical work but the petitioner - appellant filed an application on 18.07.2001 to re -consider and review the order in respect of the clerical work and that he may be allowed to do the work of Legal Assistant and in all the correspondence made to the competent authorities the petitioner - appellant has described himself as holding the post of Legal Assistant of the Office of Registrar, Co -operative Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi and the petitioner -appellant was not interested in doing the clerical job assigned to him and the work allotted to him was re -assigned to Smt. Hiramati Kumari by modifying the order as per Annexure 14 to the writ petition and it is false to say that the petitioner -appellant was working in the office of the respondent No. 4 as the Law Officer/Legal Assistant from the date of his joining because no work of Legal Assistant was ever assigned to him and he, in the place of doing the work of clerk assigned to him by the Section Officer, without authority treating himself as Legal Assistant disobeyed the order of the higher authorities and the Section Officer of the department submitted a buffsheet on 14.12.2001 before respondent No. 5 making serious allegation against the petitioner -appellant regarding indiscipline and his misconduct and, thereafter, the petitioner -appellant instead of doing clerical job without any authority submitted unnecessary application and representation before the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 5 levelling imputation against the officers of the Department and he was directed to file the show cause as to why departmental proceeding be not initiated against him for indiscipline, disobedience and not performing the clerical work assigned to him and instead of filing a show cause he filed a representation making uncalled for and unwarranted allegations against the officers of the department and also sought permission to proceed against them under the several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and he was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and charge and supplementary charges were settled against him and the departmental proceeding was conducted by the Inquiring Officer in which the charges were prima facie established though in spite of service of notice of the departmental proceeding and its publication in the newspaper he did not participate therein and as a result of which after second notice (Annexure 22 to the writ petition) to him, the disciplinary authority i.e., respondent No. 5 agreeing with the Inquiry Report passed the punishment of his compulsory retirement vide, Annexure 28/A to the writ petition corresponding to Annexure 10 to this appeal. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner -appellant in person that he was provisionally transferred in the office of the Registrar, Co -operative Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi on bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar where he has joined on 15.02.2001 and he has not been finally allocated to the Jharkhand State under Section 72 of the Bihar Re -organization Act. 2000 and his matter has been referred to the State Advisory Committee for taking final decision regarding his allocation to the State of Jharkhand and in this view of the matter he is under the administrative control of the State of Bihar and respondent No. 5 had no jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceeding against him and to impose punishment of his compulsory retirement and it is the State of Bihar which is competent in respect thereof. It has also been contended that respondent No. 5 cannot be the disciplinary authority with regard to this petitioner -appellant and he is definitely not his appointing authority.;