Braj Kishore Prasad Srivastava Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4728/1991
Petitioner: Braj Kishore Prasad Srivastava
Respondent: The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4728/1991
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 18, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution
Articles 136,14,16 – Appeal – Promotion not considered due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings – Challenge before High Court and then in SLP – During pendency, proceedings concluded and superannuated – Legality assailed – LPA pending. Held that appeal before Supreme Court has become infructuous. No directions needed as LPA pending.
(Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is by an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board and he was serving as Deputy Director of Accounts. While continuing as such, as his case for promotion was not considered by the appropriate authority on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, he moved the High Court of Patna and having been unsuccessful therein, he moved this Court and this Court granted leave. During the pendency of this appeal, where the question for consideration is whether the appellant was denied of a constitutional right of consideration for promotion, and thereby there has been a violation of Articles 16 and 14, the disciplinary proceedings has been concluded. Even thereafter the appellant superannuated from the service. The appellant assails the legality of the said order of punishment inflicted in the disciplinary proceedings by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Patna, and that writ petition was dismissed in limine against which a Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred in the High Court of Patna. In view of the order of punishment inflicted upon the appellant in the disciplinary proceedings, while the appeal was pending in this Court, and the legality of that order of punishment being under challenge in Letter Patent Appeal pending before the High Court of Patna, this appeal has become infructuous. The question of any direction qua non-consideration of appellant’s right to be considered for promotion would depend upon the result of the Letter Patent Appeal, which is pending before the High Court of Patna whereunder the appellant has assailed the legality of the inflictment of punishment in the departmental proceedings itself. In that view of the matter, we hold this appeal to be infructuous and direct that the Letter Patent Appeal be disposed of by the High Court of Patna and depending upon the result therein, the relief, if any, can be moulded.
1. This appeal is by an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board and he was serving as Deputy Director of Accounts. While continuing as such, as his case for promotion was not considered by the appropriate authority on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, he moved the High Court of Patna and having been unsuccessful therein, he moved this Court and this Court granted leave. During the pendency of this appeal, where the question for consideration is whether the appellant was denied of a constitutional right of consideration for promotion, and thereby there has been a violation of Articles 16 and 14, the disciplinary proceedings has been concluded. Even thereafter the appellant superannuated from the service. The appellant assails the legality of the said order of punishment inflicted in the disciplinary proceedings by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Patna, and that writ petition was dismissed in limine against which a Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred in the High Court of Patna. In view of the order of punishment inflicted upon the appellant in the disciplinary proceedings, while the appeal was pending in this Court, and the legality of that order of punishment being under challenge in Letter Patent Appeal pending before the High Court of Patna, this appeal has become infructuous. The question of any direction qua non-consideration of appellant’s right to be considered for promotion would depend upon the result of the Letter Patent Appeal, which is pending before the High Court of Patna whereunder the appellant has assailed the legality of the inflictment of punishment in the departmental proceedings itself. In that view of the matter, we hold this appeal to be infructuous and direct that the Letter Patent Appeal be disposed of by the High Court of Patna and depending upon the result therein, the relief, if any, can be moulded.
