1975 INSC 0479
                                               Shri Ramcharitra Roy

                                                           Vs

                                      The High Court of Patna and Another

                                           Writ Petition No. 56 of 1972

                                 (M. H. Beg, R. S. Sarkaria, P. N. Shinghal JJ)

                                                      02.12.1975

                                                     JUDGMENT

BEG, J. -

1. The petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution makes the following allegations :

                  (1) He was a Bench Clerk in the Additional Sub-Judge's, Court, Purnea, in 1967. On
                  May 20, 1967, the District Judge, Purnea, asked for an explanation from him with
                  regard to a land acquisition case No. 119 of 1958 as to why the record of the case
                  was not put up expeditiously before the presiding officer and a date fixed for
                  consideration of the sarishtadar's report. He gave the explanation that he was for the
                  dealing assistant for land acquisition cases. On June 15, 1967, the District Judge,
                  Purnea, rejecting the correctness of the petitioner's stand, required the petitioner to
                  show cause why his increments and promotion should not be stopped. The petitioner
                  repeated his explanation. He was called by the District Judge on August 1, 1967, in
                  his chamber and heard personally. On August 8, 1967, the District Judge passed an
                  order that the petitioner's increment and promotion be stopped for two years from
                  August 1, 1967.

                  (2) On August 30, 1967, the District Judge, Purnea, drew up a list of persons
                  promoted but did not include the name of the petitioner in it. The petitioner appealed
                  to the High Court. By its letter dated September 10, 1970, the High Court allowed it
                  and asked the District Judge to reconsider his case. On November 7, 1970, the then
                  District Judge of Purnea ordered that the petitioner be promoted will effect from the
                  date from which he was entitled to such promotion subjected only to the condition
                  that he will not be entitled to arrears of salary from the date of promotion. The
                  petitioner then made a representation to the District Judge for the alleged arrears of
                  his salary which he had not received but this was rejected. The petitioner again
                  appealed to the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court against the order of the District
                  Judge passed on November 7, 1970, refusing the arrears of salary. He represented
                  that other clerks had received their arrears. He also alleged that his pension would
                  also be affected by stoppage of increments.

                  (3) He had not approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,
                  because, he says, a Full Bench of the High Court of Patna in AIR 1952 Pat 309 (ILR
                  1952 Pat 405) (in Re : Babul Chandra Mittra) had laid down that no writ petition lay
                  in the High Court against orders of the High Court in its administrative capacity. He
                  alleged that he had been punished contrary to the provisions of Article 311(2) of the
                  Constitution. He also alleged violation of his fundamental right under Article 16(1)
                  of the Constitution.

2. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to explain to us how any fundamental right of the
petitioner has been affected. From the reply filed on behalf of the High Court it appears that there
was a very detailed order by the District Judge of Purnea setting out the responsibility of the
petitioner for delaying land acquisition case No. 119 of 1958 (Mrs. Dhana Laxmi Lal v. Rasik Lal)
and the payment of compensation money of Rs. 24,140 to the lady concerned. The circumstances
indicated that the petitioner, who was incharge of the case, had acted in violation of Rule 24 and
directions given to him. The finding was that he had deliberately shelved the issue of a payment
order in order to harass the litigant who was running from pillar to post for redress. Presumably, his
object was dishonesty. He had been punished very lightly after his case had been sent back for
further opportunity to be given to him to be heard. His appeal had been dismissed by the Chief
Justice of the Patna High Court on November 8, 1971, by a detailed order full reasons disclosed
there. No aspect of Article 16(1) of the Constitution can arise in this case. This writ petition is,
therefore, dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.

</html