Blogs >> Miscellaneous >>
mockery of bihar state litigation policy , 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2946 of 2009
Vinay Sharma
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
-----------
3. 12.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.
The petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.3.2006. A memo of four charges was issued on 20.4.2006. The petitioner filed CWJC No. 4140 of 2006. The Court by a considered order at paragraph 8 of the same quashed the resolution of the State Government initiating the departmental proceeding as also the memo of charges.
The charges related to the year 2002-2003.The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 31.1.2008. On 22.5.2008 the respondents are alleged to have initiated proceeding against him under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules in context of the charges quashed by the Court.
The writ petition was filed on 3.3.2009 after serving two copies of the same in the office of the Advocate General. The second copy was to facilitate expeditious filing of a counter affidavit to assist the Court in timely dispensation of justice. The matter was listed on 4.3.2009 when four weeks’ time was granted to file counter affidavit. Nearly two and half years since the date of filing of the writ petition has not been considered sufficient by the respondents to file a counter affidavit. The Court nonetheless on 11th July passed over the matter to enable the Counsel for the State to seek instructions why no counter affidavit was being filed. He submits that he has received a written instruction from the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department dated 12.7.2011 instructing him to seek further time of at least two weeks for filing of the counter affidavit.
2
Those who hold power vested by the Government do so in trust and as a trustee of the State Government which believes that they shall act in its best interest to protect its actions and claims. The Government has every right to contest a litigation before a Court and justify its action. But that cannot be turned into an excuse by the trustees to linger the proceeding and delay it to the maximum extent possible so that it virtually results in denial to access of justice to citizens approaching the Court. There can be no two opinions that for a person who is superannuated a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules is an extremely serious matter. The respondents sanguine in the safety of their office seem to be unconcerned. The Court is constrained to observe that the trustees of the State Government appear to be labouring under a misconception that that no matter how much time may have passed since the writ petition may have been filed, to ask for an adjournment for filing a counter affidavit at the first hearing irrespective of the date of filing the writ petition, was a vested right. That the Government was a privileged litigant, where the citizen must stand and wait for justice.
In pursuance of the National Litigation Policy the State Government has framed the Bihar State Litigation Policy 2011 published in the Bihar Gazette on 31.3.2011. The objective of the policy is to transform the State Government into an efficient litigant. Meaning thereby conducting litigation in a cohesive, co-ordinated and time bound manner. Clause IV (d) of the Policy dealing with adjournment states that unnecessary adjournment on behalf of the State should be avoided, they will be frowned upon and infraction dealt with seriously. In fresh litigation where the Government was a defendant or respondent in the first instant a reasonable adjournment may be applied for, for obtaining
3
instruction. It must be furnished with such instructions and made available and communicated before the next date of hearing. The Nodal Officer and if necessary the Head of the Department is answerable. If there are repeated adjournments serious note will be taken of the negligence and default of the respondents concerned and it will be dealt with appropriately by referring such cases to the Empowered Committee. Clause V states that filing of counter affidavit should not be delayed. It is now for the respondents to do some soul searching with regard to the materials noticed in the present order. Adjournment granted subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the State Government within a period of ten days before the High Court Legal Services Committee Patna and receipt filed within that period. The Counter affidavit must explain the reasons for the delay fixing responsibility in accordance with the State Litigation Policy and making a clear statement from whose salary the amount has been deducted along with proof in support thereof. Today the delay in dispensation of justice and the clogging to the dockets of the Court is a matter of concern for one and all. Repeated seminars and workshops are being held to find out a solution of this problem. Perhaps as long as the attitude of the present nature as discussed in this order persists the solution may be difficult to be found. The petitioner desires quick justice. The Court is willing to hear the matter. The respondents ensure that it is not heard. Pending disposal of this application there shall be stay of the order dated 22.5.2008. List after four weeks at the same position for final disposal at the admission stage, if possible. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)
4
|
|
