Uma Kant Dubey v. The Food Corporation of India

Patna High Court CWJC No.12924 of 2012 (14) dt.23-01-2013 - 2 - (iii) petitioner. Also for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the eye of law.

3. From the reliefs claimed it is quite apparent that this writ petition was filed on 18.07.2012 against the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 03.06.2009 which was served upon him on 13.10.2010. The case was initially heard on 16.10.2012 when an interim order was passed that “in the meantime no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.”

4. Subsequently respondents a supplementary counter affidavit on 21.11.2012 in which they annexed order dated 17.11.2012 issued by the General Manager (Region) of the Corporation by which the order of petitioner’s suspension dated 03.06.2009 was revoked.

5. Thereafter petitioner was terminated vide order dated 27.11.2012 and hence when he came to know about the order of his termination he filed I.A.No.7908 of 2012 annexing a copy of the said order communicated through notice dated 29.11.2012 and seeking amendment for challenging the same as one of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. Patna High Court CWJC No.12924 of 2012 (14) dt.23-01-2013 - 3 -

6. In response thereto a preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents stating that the writ petition was filed simplicitor for revocation of petitioner’s suspension and when the suspension of the petitioner was itself revoked by the authorities on

17.11.2012 nothing remained to be decided in the writ petition and it has become infructuous. So far the order of termination is concerned, it is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that it is a separate matter altogether which has to be considered on the basis of separate sets of facts, laws and pleadings and it cannot be decided in the instant writ petition and hence this writ petition is fit to be dismissed as having become infructuous.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the respondents and submits that neither the order of suspension dated 03.06.2009 was served upon the petitioner within sixteen months nor the order of termination dated 27.11.2012 was ever served upon him and only notice dated 29.11.2012 was sent which was published in the Newspaper on 30.11.2012 on which day the petitioner was going to superannuate. Furthermore, the said order of Patna High Court CWJC No.12924 of 2012 (14) dt.23-01-2013 - 4 - termination dated 27.11.2012 was passed within ten days of the order of revocation of his suspension dated 17.11.2012 which clearly shows malafide of the authority against the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that this Court had specifically ordered on 16.10.2012 that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, but in spite of that the said order of termination has been passed against the order which is clearly against the spirit of the said order and clearly shows that the authorities are trying to play fraud not only upon the petitioner but also upon the Court, especially when the order of termination was passed in haste-post-haste manner and during the pendency of the proceeding five inquiry officers were changed for reasons best known to the authorities.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also claims that although wife and son of the petitioner duly informed the authorities that the petitioner was a cancer patient already hospitalized and was even unable to open his mouth, but without considering the said state of the petitioner and without giving him any opportunity a proceeding against the petitioner had been hurriedly concluded by the order of Patna High Court CWJC No.12924 of 2012 (14) dt.23-01-2013 - 5 - termination during the pendency of this writ petition, especially when the interim order dated 16.10.2012 was in force. Hence he submits that the acts of the respondents being inhuman apart from being absolutely illegal, the amendment sought by the petitioner is fit to be allowed.

10. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is quite apparent from the reliefs claimed in the writ petition is merely against the order of suspension and admittedly the said order of suspension had been revoked on 17.11.2012. It is also not in dispute that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was going on. In the said circumstances, when the order of suspension was revoked by the authorities, this writ petition has automatically become infructuous.

11. So far the order of petitioner’s termination dated

27.11.2012 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised very serious points with respect to the acts of the authorities and the facts and circumstances with regard to alleged illegal and inhuman approach of the authorities while proceeding in the enquiry and passing the order of termination and getting it published on the day when the Patna High Court CWJC No.12924 of 2012 (14) dt.23-01-2013 - 6 - petitioner was to superannuate, but the said question cannot be considered and decided in this writ petition which had become infructuous immediately after the revocation of petitioner’s suspension on 17.11.2012.

12. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous against the order of petitioner’s suspension. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the statement made by the petitioner he will be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition before this Court challenging the order of petitioner’s termination especially when the question of malafide, equity, natural justice are involved as per the claim of the petitioner. It may be noted that this Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner and this order shall not prejudice court/authority considering the order of petitioner’s termination, if challenged by the petitioner. (S.N. Hussain, J) Sunil/-