Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned AC to GP-4 for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order as contained in Memo No. 141 dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure '12') by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an accused in the infamous fodder scam case being P.S. Case No. 43(A)/96. In the said case, he has been convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 31.07.2007 and ordered to undergo maximum sentence of three years with a fine of Rs.70,000/-.

9. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the specific statements made in paragraph '5' of the supplementary affidavit. Copy of the supplementary affidavit has been served upon Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned AC to GP-4 for the State and he has accepted the same. In paragraph '5', the petitioner has stated examples of atleast 11 persons who, according to the petitioner, were convicted in the fodder scam cases. One of them namely, Ashok Kumar Singh who was Assistant Treasury Officer and a Patna High Court CWJC No. 22197 of 2011(5) dt.21-03-2023 co-convict of the petitioner in RC43(A)/96 is said to be getting the pension after having been approved by the Jharkhand High Court. There is no response to the statements made in the supplementary affidavit, therefore, this Court is not aware of the stand of the State on this score but on record, the petitioner has brought a copy of the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 7127 of 2010 (Ranjit Singh versus The State of Bihar and Others). In the said case also, the petitioner was dismissed from service in view of his conviction by the Special Judge, CBI at Ranchi in Mango P.S. Case No. 30/96/RC No. 23A of 1996. His appeal against the judgment of conviction was pending before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. He cited discrimination in the matter of award of punishments. The learned Co-ordinate Bench noticed that the counter affidavit did not deny the assertions with regard to the fact that Shri Kunj Bihari Thakur and Shri Ashok Kumar Singh were either allowed to superannuate honourably or was still in service. The learned Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the writ application in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akhilesh Kumar Singh versus State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 74 with a direction to the respondents that they Patna High Court CWJC No. 22197 of 2011(5) dt.21-03-2023 will take necessary decision afresh.

14.In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, to facilitate passing of a fresh order by the respondents, this Court sets aside the impugned order as contained in Annexure '12' to the writ application with a direction to the respondents to consider the reply of the petitioner as contained in Annexure '10' and also examine the averments Patna High Court CWJC No. 22197 of 2011(5) dt.21-03-2023 of the petitioner as regards the treatment given to some of the co-convicts/ accused in the fodder scam cases as stated in Paragraph '5' of the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner. Upon consideration of these materials, an appropriate view be taken by the competent authority. Let a fresh order be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.