The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.5035 of 2012 Ashwani Kumar Sinha. ………. Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ------ ..…….. Respondents. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : : For the State ------ Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, Advocate J.C. to Sr. S.C.I ------ 05/25.02.2013: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to give him same treatment as has been given to the similarly situated Respondent Nos.8 to 13. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed on Class-III post for surveillance work by the Selection Committee long back in 1989. He had joined and worked till January, 1991. By order dated 25th February, 1991, the petitioner along with 50 others similarly appointed persons was terminated from service.
Legal Reasoning
The said termination order was challenged by the petitioner along with others before the Patna High Court by way of filing writ petition, being CWJC No.2078 of 1991. By order dated 3rd
Decision
April, 1991, the said writ petition was disposed of. In compliance of the said order, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Godda accepted the joining of the petitioner and others by order dated 8th April, 1991. The petitioner, thereafter, had been in continuous service and had been also given promotion by order dated 6th May, 1994. 3. By order dated 23rd July, 2000, the petitioner along with others was again terminated from service. The petitioner challenged the said order in CWJC No.1848 of 2001, which was dismissed by order dated 20th August, 2001. The petitioner has alleged that this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has not appreciated the law urged on behalf of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed another writ petition, being W.P.(S) No.2156 of 2007, which was also dismissed by order dated 18th May, 2009. 5. It has been stated that other persons, namely, Shiv Chandra Prasad Sinha & Ors., had preferred writ petition, being 2 W.P.(S) No.2399 of 2009. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 9th July, 2009 and termination order was quashed. The petitioner has also said that even earlier other persons, namely, Daniel Hansda & Ors., had preferred writ petition, being CWJC No.895 of 2000(P). The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 9th January, 2003, setting aside the termination order, giving liberty to the State to conclude the enquiry and pass order in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since some of the persons, namely, Respondent Nos.8 to 13 have been retained in service by the respondents, the petitioner should also be equally treated and he should also be allowed to continue in service. 7. The respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing facts and misrepresenting before this Court. The writ petition, CWJC No.1848 of 2001, filed by the petitioner with the same prayer, was dismissed by order dated 20th August, 2001. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred appeal, being L.P.A. No.636 of 2001. The said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by a well considered and elaborate order dated 14th May, 2003. In the said order, it was noticed that the termination order was upheld up to the Supreme Court. It was also observed that before his termination, there was an enquiry and the petitioner was given opportunity to defend. In the said appeal, the petitioner had taken the same ground that some of the similarly situated persons were continuing in service. The Division Bench had shown a great concern over the continuation of such persons in service and copy of the judgment was sent to the Chief Secretary for taking appropriate action against the erring officers and illegal appointees in accordance with law. The order of the learned single Judge dismissing the petitioner's writ petition was upheld after recording speaking reasons. The petitioner has suppressed the said facts with deliberate oblique motive to obtain order which was earlier denied up to the Apex 3 Court. The petitioner is liable for suitable punishment for the said malicious suppression and dishonest attempt. The third round litigation initiated by way of this writ petition shows the defiant attitude of the petitioner against the orders of law Courts. In spite of upholding the order of the learned single Judge by the Division Bench, the petitioner has made statement that his writ petition was dismissed without appreciating the law urged on his behalf. That comment is contemptuous. The xerox copy of the order of the Division Bench passed in L.P.A. No.636 of 2001 has been produced before this Court by the respondents, which is kept on record. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the petitioner had challenged the order of his termination first in CWJC No.1848 of 2001. The said writ petition was dismissed. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred L.P.A. No.636 of 2001. In the said appeal, the petitioner had taken specific ground that other similarly situated persons are continuing in service and, he should be also equally treated and allowed to continue after setting aside the termination order. The parties were heard at length. The Division Bench of appeal dealt with the case in detail. The LPA Court held that the termination of the petitioner along with others was earlier challenged, but were upheld up to the Supreme Court. It is clear from the order of the appellate court that there was an enquiry before termination of the petitioner and sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend. The order of termination and the order passed in writ petition was, thereafter, confirmed and appeal was dismissed. In spite of dismissal of the said appeal, the petitioner again raised the same issue and made same prayer by filing another writ petition, being W.P.(S) No.2156 of 2007. It appears from the statements made in Para-20 and Annexure-9 of the writ petition that the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. This is third writ petition filed by the petitioner in which same prayer has been made. In Para-16 of the writ petition, it has been stated that CWJC No.1848 of 2001 4 was dismissed by order dated 20th August, 2001 without appreciating the law urged on behalf of the petitioner. The said order has not been intentionally brought on record. The petitioner has completely suppressed the said order, challenged in L.P.A. No.636 of 2001. The said appeal was dismissed by an elaborate order after due appreciation of facts, law and argument advanced by the parties, including the ground that certain other persons, similarly appointed, were continuing in service. The petitioner has not mentioned even a single word about the said order passed in appeal. The respondents though have not filed their counter affidavit vehemently opposed the writ petition on the above grounds. They also filed xerox copy of the order passed in the said appeal, which is kept on record. 9. Considering the facts and the documents available on record, I find that the petitioner has filed this writ petition by suppressing the material facts with the same prayer which was rejected earlier in writ petition [W.P.(S) No.1848 of 2001]. The appeal filed against the said order, being LPA No.636 of 2001, was also dismissed by a reasoned order. I, therefore, find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has a defiant attitude towards the Court's order and he is also guilty of suppressing the material facts and making misrepresentation before this Court. 10. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand). The amount of cost shall be deposited by the petitioner in the account of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority within two months. 11. Since the petitioner has been found, prima facie, guilty of misrepresenting and suppressing the facts before this Court and, thereby committing Contempt of this Court, he is also liable for separate proceeding. 12. The office is directed to register a contempt case separately against the petitioner and place the same before this Court for further order. 5 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority for taking appropriate step for realisation of the cost, if the same is not paid within the said period. Sanjay/ (Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)