The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 177 of 2024 Priyanka Kumari @ Priyanka Pandey @ Priyanka Kumari Pandey, aged about 39 years, wife of Shri Vishnu Singh Tiwary and daughter of Shri Ram Raj Pandey resident of village, P.O. & P.S.-Pandu, District- Palamau … … Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 2.Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department of the Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 3.Deputy Commissioner –cum-District Programme Co-ordinator, Palamau, P.O. & P.S.- Medni Nagar, District-Palamau at Medni Nagar 4.Dy. Development Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S.- Medni Nagar, District- Palamau at Medni Nagar 5.Block Development Officer, Utari Road, P.O. & P.S.- Utari Road, District- Palamau at Medni Nagar … … Respondents/Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
Single Judge of this Court interfered with the judgment of conviction of the appellant and thereafter the appellant approached the writ Court with the following prayers: 2 L.P.A. No. 177 of 2024 1. For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s) for quashing the Impugned Order issued under Memo No: 363 dated 19.04.2023 (Annexure- 20) whereby and whereunder the respondent No:3 rejected the application filed by the petitioner with Joining Report. 2. For quashing the Office order issued under Memo No: 641 dated 09.10.2021 the respondent No: 3 purported to have cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the post of "Gram Rojgar Sevika" (Annexure- 18) whereby and whereunder 3. For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in her service with all consequential benefits; and / or for issuance of any other writ /order/direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 7. This is now too well settled a law that acquittal in a criminal case is not a ground to interfere with the order of termination from service. This is not really within the powers of the writ Court to compel the employer to keep in employment a person who got himself involved in a criminal case and was convicted. May be the appellant was acquitted in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 887 of 2019 but then the fact remains that the charge against her was touching upon her integrity and moral turpitude. As we have indicated, the order passed by the writ Court in W.P.(S) 5370 of 2022 was accepted by the appellant and, in compliance thereof, an order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner which the writ Court found proper and justifiable. 8. The writ Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not interfere with the decision of the respondent authority unless it is demonstrated before the Court that the order under challenge suffered from breach of natural justice or was passed contrary to the statutory rules. As the records would reveal, several opportunities were offered to the appellant to put forth her defence and her defence has in fact been taken into consideration by the Deputy Commissioner. 3 L.P.A. No. 177 of 2024 9.
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant For the Respondents -------- : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P. V Per Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. Dated 13th June 2024 The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 14th December 2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3708 of 2023 . 2. That was the second writ petition filed by the appellant in connection to her appointment as ‘Rozgar Sevika’. 3. In W.P.(S) No. 5370 of 2022, the writ Court issued a direction to the Deputy Commissioner –cum-District Programme Co-ordinator, Palamau to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. In compliance thereof, an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner declining to accept joining of the appellant on the post of ‘Rozgar Sevika’. This order was challenged by the appellant in W.P.(S) No. 3708 of 2023 and, as noticed above, the writ Court did not interfere in the matter. 4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of termination from service of the appellant which was contained in Memo No. 641 dated 9th October 2021 was suppressed by the respondent authority and the appellant had no knowledge about the same. According to him, the said order of termination dated 9th October 2021 was put to challenge in W.P.(S) No. 3708 of 2023 but the same has not been considered and adjudicated by the writ Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ Court’s decision dated 14th December 2023 is therefore seriously flawed in law. 5. In the first place, the order passed by the writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 5370 of 2022 which was filed after her acquittal in Vigilance Case No. 9 of 2011 has been accepted by the appellant. In the said writ proceeding, the writ Court had issued a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a reasoned order which direction has been complied by the authority. As to knowledge of the termination order dated 9th October 2021, the writ pleading is completely silent and the appellant did not even indicate when and how she could come to know about the said order. The order dated 9th October 2021 at page 96 of the paper book indicates that a copy of the said order was sent to Nishant Praveen, Priyanka Kumari (the appellant herein) and Anita Kumari who were working as ‘Rozgar Sevika’. 6. The appellant was involved in criminal case vide Vigilance Case no. 9 of 2011 and she was convicted by a judgment dated 6th August 2019 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-. In Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 887 of 2019, a learned
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, we accord our concurrence with the opinion of the writ Court and, accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty 4 L.P.A. No. 177 of 2024