Patna High Court - Orders
Indradeo Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 24 November, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.9371 of 2006
INDRADEO PRASAD SINGH, son of late Bhagwat Yadav, resident of
village Bairagibag, P O - Bharthua, P S and District - Jehanabad.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Home (Police),
Bihar, Patna.
3. The D.G.P., Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, at Gaya.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad at Jehanabad.
6. The S.P. Samastipur at Samastipur.
-----------
For the petitioner: Mr. Paras Nath.
For the State : Mr. Anant Kumar, AC to SC XI.
----
02. 24.11.2010Annexure-5 is the order which is under challenge in the present writ application. By virtue of this order service of the petitioner who was working on a post of constable was terminated w.e.f. 15.2.2006. Writ has been field for quashing of that order.
The primary contention of the petitioner while assailing the said order is that the petitioner was appointed in a special circumstance for his exceptional act of bravery. The respondent authorities including D.G. Police therefore made recommendation for his appointment and he has worked on that post for almost 16 years before the respondents decided to do away with his service on the ground that the procedure laid down in the Bihar Police Manual had not been followed while making appointment on the post. A termination, according to him, in this background was uncalled for and illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to rely on a decision rendered in the case of Kamal Chandra Sah v. The State of Bihar and others, 2006 (3) PLJR 468 wherein the learned single Judge in similar circumstances quashed the order of termination and reinstated 2 the petitioner.
The stand of the State is that any appointment made for whatever consideration or reason without following the statutory procedure in this regard is untenable and an illegal appointment made in this circumstance even at the level of DG Police was required to be undone.
In a similar circumstance a matter travelled to the Division Bench which is the case of Dharmendra Kumar v. The State of Bihar, 2010 (3) PLJR 916. This decision is now being cited or relied by the learned counsel for the State to enforce his argument or the stand taken in the counter affidavit. In this decision the earlier decision rendered in the case of Kamal Chandra Sah (supra) has been overruled and the Court has categorically held that any appointment made contrary to Rule 661B of the Bihar Police Manual is per say illegal and no amount of authority or power vested in the DG cum IG Police, the State of Bihar can undo the procedure laid down for such appointment.
There is no factual dispute as to the background under which the petitioner came to be appointed. If the law as laid down by the Division Bench is correct then the order of termination will also will have to be upheld to be correct. No interference therefore requires with the decision even though it may be harsh on the petitioner since he had worked on that post for almost 16 years.
The writ application is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)