'Happened 2 Yrs Ago, Departmental Inquiry Initiated': Patna HC Dismisses Plea For SIT Probe Into Unauthorised Appointment By SHO, Imposes 10K Costs

A division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy observed, “We find the Public Interest Litigation to be a clear abuse of process of Court. The petitioner is aware of the case registered against the 8th respondent: and since the 8th respondent is also arrested on the next day, the petitioner knows that the 8th respondent is no longer employed in the police station. There are allegations made against the S.P. and Sergeant Major without impleading them in their personal capacity. This is all the more relevant since the alleged incident occurred two years back.” 

Manoj Kumar Mishra, the petitioner, contested the appointment of Vikram Kumar, a private respondent, who was permitted to work in a police station by the then SHO, Deepak Kumar (Respondent no. 7), without an official appointment order. The writ petition filed by Mishra included a First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered against the private respondent.

Mishra sought to constitute a high-level Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) to uncover the truth behind such fraudulent activities occurring in the State of Bihar.

The court emphasized that the accusation pertained solely to the appointment of an individual against whom an F.I.R. had been registered. It highlighted that the unfounded claim of widespread appointments of a similar nature across the state was based on this single instance.

Consequently, the court, with the sole purpose of establishing the facts surrounding such appointments and subsequent actions, issued a directive to the state to submit a counter affidavit.

Following this, the State submitted a counter affidavit, highlighting that an FIR had been filed against Vikram Kumar on October 31, 2021, and he was promptly arrested the following day, subsequently terminating his employment. Moreover, the Station House Officer (SHO) who had approved Vikram Kumar's joining faced disciplinary proceedings through a departmental inquiry.

The Court expressed surprise over the fact that an 'omnibus prayer' for the appointment of a S.I.T. was made in the year 2023 based on the allegations against which there was a proceeding already initiated by the State Government.

The Court held, “We would not entertain the P.I.L, supervise the investigation nor are we convinced that there is any material brought on record to appoint a S.I.T. The P.I.L. is filed regarding an incident that occurred two years back, in which action has been initiated by the Department, making prayers for appointment of a S.I.T., which is more in the nature of a publicity induced litigation.”

“We dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be recovered from the petitioner by the Bihar State Legal Services Authority in the same manner, as is proceeded with for recovery of 'revenue due on land'; if not paid voluntarily within a period of one month,” the Court concluded.

Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13298 of 2023

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar and Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 6

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s:Mr. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. P.K. Shahi (AG), Mr. Amish Kumar, AC to AG

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement