SRI NIL MADHAV JHA. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application for quashing a part of order dated 11.10.1984 and order dated 10.10.1985 issued by the Director -Cum -Inspector General of Police, Bihar, putting the petitioner under suspension retrospectively and then compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the service of the State Government. The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant in the year 1948. In the year 1950, he was transferred to the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur. On 31.3.1959, the petitioner was put under suspension on the charge of holding properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. A departmental proceeding was initiated and the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the State Government by an order issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 8.5.1961. When the departmental appeal and representation filed on behalf of the petitioner were rejected he filed Title Suit No. 10 of 1966 in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur, for declaration that the order of his dismissal was illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) The learned Additional Subordinate Judge recorded findings on different issues in favour of the petitioner but dismissed the suit due to non -compliance of the provisions of Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Being aggrieved by that judgment the petitioner filed a First Appeal (First Appeal No. 407 of 1973) before this Court. That First Appeal was heard and allowed by a Bench of this Court, on 29.4.1981. The learned Judges came to the conclusion that there has been a compliance of Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such the suit should not have been dismissed on that ground. On merits of the order of dismissal it was observed as follows: - -

(3.) In accordance with the direction given in the aforesaid First Appeal the petitioner deposited the court fee on 25.5.1981 and submitted his joining report. The petitioner was, however, not allowed to join and he superannuated on 31.1.1983. A special leave application filed on behalf of the State of Bihar before the Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgment of this Court was rejected. Thereafter on 11.10.1984 the impugned order was passed by the Director General -Cum -Inspector General of Police, saying that in view of the decision given in the aforesaid First Appeal No. 407 of 1973, the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner was being cancelled and the petitioner was being reinstated to his post with effect from the forenoon of 8.5.1961. So far up to this part of the order there is no objection on the part of the petitioner. But having reinstated him with effect from the date of his dismissal the order further said that as the petitioner was under suspension on the date of dismissal he shall be deemed to be under suspension from the date of the dismissal till the date of his retirement, i.e., till 31.1.1983. The order further said that as per the decision of this Court, the departmental enquiry shall be continued against the petitioner and only after disposal thereof a decision shall be taken in respect of the payment of salary etc. during the period of suspension. Another order was issued on 10.10.1985 saying that the petitioner had been dismissed after a departmental proceeding on 8.5.1961 against which he went to the High Court in the First Appeal No. 407 of 1973; the High Court has declared the order of dismissal as invalid but it has also observed that the charges levelled against the petitioner were serious. In view of the aforesaid observation, departmental proceeding could have been further continued against the petitioner. Thereafter the order pointed out that the petitioner had been reinstated with effect from 8.5.1961, but as he was under suspension from the date of dismissal, he shall be deemed to have been under suspension till the date of his retirement (31.1.1983). Lastly it said that the department has examined the charges levelled against the petitioner. The charges against the petitioner were found to have been established and as such the petitioner was being compulsorily retired with effect from 31.1.1983, the date of his superannuation. A direction was given to deduct 10 per cent from his pension and nothing was to be payable to the petitioner for the period of his suspension.