- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN this Writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.8.2004 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau whereby he sought to review the order dated 5.2.2004 passed in departmental appeal No. 6 of 2001. The order dated 9.8.2004 reads as under: '' "Perused the letter of Dy. Commissioner, Palamau received vide letter No. 278 dated 2,6.2004 wherein it has been stated that impugned order in departmental appeal case No. 6/2000 has been passed ex parte. It has been further stated that statement of facts was filed vide memo No. 597 dated 3.9.2002 and the same was not considered while passing the order. Providing due opportunity of hearing to all the parties to the case is the cardinal principles of law and its breach vitiates the order as being violative of the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, the matter requires fresh consideration. Put up on 24.8.2004 for hearing. Inform all concerned." For better appreciation of the facts of the case, the order dated 21.4.2004 passed in WPS No. 2158/2004 is reproduced here in below: "Heard the parties. The petitioner retired from the post of Head Assistant on 29.2.2004 from the office of the Deputy Collector, Daltonganj. Before retirement the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No. 368/2004 with a grievance that several other similarly situated employees were promoted to Senior Selection Grade in suppertime scale while the claim of the petitioner for promotion was illegally rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 22.8.2001 and against that order the petitioner filed departmental appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The said writ application was disposed of on 22.1.2004 with direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj to hear and dispose of the appeal before the date of superannuation of the petitioner. In compliance of the aforesaid order the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau disposed of the appeal on 5.2.2004. In the order the Divisional Commissioner recorded a finding that other similarly situated employees against whom departmental proceeding was pending, were given promotion ignoring the case of the petitioner. The Divisional Commissioner, therefore, allowed the appeal by giving retrospective promotion to the petitioner and also directing for initiation of proceeding against the employees who have been illegally granted promotion. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the aforesaid order passed by the Divisional Commissioner the respondents ar not releasing the retrial benefits of the petitioner on the basis of promotional scale of pay. The petitioner, in this regard, has already filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. In the background of the aforesaid admitted facts I direct the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to take final decision in the matter of payment of retrial benefits to the petitioner after taking into consideration the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in appeal. Such decision must be taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is disposed of."
(3.) ALTHOUGH the Divisional Commissioner passed order on 5.2.2004 but the Deputy Commissioner did not challenge the said order or made any grievance before the Commissioner for the review of the order. It is a matter of surprise that although departmental proceeding is a statutory proceeding, the Divisional Commissioner, on the basis of a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner acted on the said letter and passed the impugned order, Prima facie, in my opinion, the action of the Deputy Commissioner in sending the letter is to flout the order passed by this Court on 21.4.2004 in WPS No. 2158/2004. The Divisional Commissioner being a statutory authority is supposed to atleast follow the rules and procedures in the matter of hearing the departmental appeal or review arising out of that.;