Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Manoj Kishore Rukhaiyar vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department on 29 August, 2017

Author: Shree Chandrashekhar

Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W. P. (S) No.1561 of 2016
                                               ­­­
            Manoj Kishore Rukhaiyar                          ....    ......      Petitioner
                                               Versus
            The State of Jharkhand and Ors.                  ....    .....     Respondents 
                                              ­­­
           CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
                                              ­­­           
            For the Petitioner                : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.
                                                Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Adv.
            For the State                     : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG
                                                Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, JC to AAG
                                              ­­­
09/29.08.2017

In compliance of order of this Court, original record has  been   produced.   The   learned   Senior   counsel   appearing   for   the  petitioner   and   the   learned   Additional   Advocate   General   have  rendered assistance to the Court. I have also perused the record. It  appears that a proposal was initiated on 08.01.2014 in which there  is   a   reference   of   Prapatra   'k'.   It   was   on   record.   In   subsequent  proposals   including   the   one   which   was   put   up   before   the   Chief  Minister there is reference of  Prapatra 'k'. It is stated therein that  Prapatra 'k' was received by the department, a copy of which was  placed on record, when the aforesaid proposal was moved. 

The contention raised by the leaned Senior counsel for  the petitioner is that Prapatra 'k' must be signed by the disciplinary  authority, who in the instant case is the Chief Minister, and then  only it can be concluded that the disciplinary authority did apply its  mind and approved the same.  

Mr.   Jai   Prakash,   the   learned   Additional   Advocate  General,   however,   contends   that  Prapatra   'k'  forms   part   of   the  original record which was placed before the Chief Minister with the  proposal   to   issue   charge­memo   to   the   delinquent   officer   and   to  suspend   him,   on   which   the   Chief   Minister   has   accorded   his  approval. 

Post the matter on 12.10.2017.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Pankaj