Arjun Prasad Sahu v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4106 of 2013 Arjun Prasad Sahu ... ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Inspector General (Prisons), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Deoghar 4. The State of Bihar through the Special Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Inspector General (Prisons), Govt. of Bihar, Patna …... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner For the State of Jharkhand For the State of Bihar
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate : Mr. Deepak Kr. Prasad, J.C. to G.P.-III : Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A., Bihar 02/20.11.2013 The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 15.12.2010, 06.01.2012 and 21.07.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Jailor. He was relieved on 15.04.2005 from Madhubani (Bihar) and joined his post in the State of Jharkahnd. One under-trial prisoner namely Deo Narayan Mandal died on 04.02.2005. Pursuant to order passed by the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, order dated 15.12.2010 was passed by the Special Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar directing the Inspector General, (Prisons), Bihar to initiate departmental proceeding for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacs) from the Jail Superintendent, Jailor (petitioner) and Jail doctor. In pursuance of the said direction, a letter was issued by the Inspector General (Prisons), Bihar to the Inspector General, (Prisons) Jharkhand intimating that in view of the recommendation of the National Human Rights Commission an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) is to be recovered from the petitioner in 20 instalments. On the said ground, the impugned order dated 21.07.2012 has been passed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 2 documents on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after the bifurcation of the State Bihar and creation of the new State of Jharkhand on 15.11.2000, the State of Bihar would not have any jurisdiction to pass any order in relation to an employee who has been serving with the Government of Jharkhand. Admittedly, the petitioner was relieved from the State of Bihar and joined service under the Government of Jharkhand on 15.04.2005 and therefore, the State of Bihar would not have any jurisdiction to pass punishment order against the petitioner. He has further submitted that without initiating any enquiry or issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner, only on the basis of letter dated 15.12.2010, the impugned order has been passed by the Inspector General (Prisons), State of Jharkhand on 21.07.2012 ordering recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) in 20 instalments from the petitioner. 5. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand supports the impugned order on the ground that, since on the recommendation of the National Human Rights Commission which would binding on the State of Jharkhand, such order has been passed. 6. Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar has also supported the orders dated 15.12.2010 and 06.01.2012 on the ground that such orders were passed in pursuance of the order passed by the National Human Rights Commission. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that by letter dated 15.12.2010, the Inspector General (Prisons) Bihar specifically directed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- 3 (three lacs) after initiating departmental proceeding. It is an admitted fact and from the orders placed on record also, I do not gather any indication that any departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Moreover, this writ petition deserves to be allowed on the short point, that is, on the ground of jurisdiction alone. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgment reported in 2001 (2) JLJR 227, which has been affirmed in 2002(1) JLJR 697. 8. In “ Arvind Vijay Bilung & Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others” reported in 2001(2) JLJR 227, the Hon'ble Court as held as under: 7. “The sole question raised and to be determined as to which of the State, the present State of Bihar or Jharkhand has jurisdiction to take any disciplinary action including suspension, in respect to a person within the State of Jharkhand? ….......................................................................................... …......................................................................................... 30. In the aforesaid background, in respect to persons holding post or office in the area of State of Jharkhand, the appointing authority being the State of Jharkhand, till they are not allocated the State of Bihar, the competent authority to take disciplinary action shall be the State of Jharkhand and not the State of Bihar.” 9. In “State of Bihar Vs. Arvind Vijay Bilung & Anr.” reported in 2002 (1) JLJR 697, the Hon'ble Court has held as under: 12” In such a situation and in such a background, where the State is carved out of an existing State, the cooperation between the two States becomes meaningful. If, therefore, the State of Bihar has, in its possession, any material against a Government servant who, by virtue of section 74 of the Act, is now in the service of the State of Jharkhand and if the State of Bihar thinks that such material warrants initiation of an action against such a person, it is open to the State of Bihar to forward such material to the State of Jharkhand for such action as it considered appropriate by 4 the State of Jharkhand. Let it be very clearly understood that only role of the erstwhile State in such a situation is merely to pass on the information or the relevant material to the State of Jharkhand and leaving the rest for the State of Jharkhand to do. Similar would be the case for the State of Jharkhand if an employee is in a place in Bihar and if the State of Jharkhand has any material in its possession which may be required to be forwarded to the State of Bihar for appropriate action against such an employee.” 10. In view of the aforesaid, I find that after an employee was transferred to the State of Jharkhand, the State of Bihar would have no disciplinary control over the employee who was employed with the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same are hereby quashed. However, it would be open to the respondents to comply with the orders passed by the National Human Rights Commission after initiating enquiry in accordance with law. Satyarthi/A.F.R. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)