There is no provision under the Rule which has been shown to the Court which enables the superior authority/revisional authority to exercise power under Rule 219.4 of the Rules even after lapse of one year from the date of an order sought to be revised under the said rules, this remarkable stand was forwarded by the Patna HC in the Civil Writ jurisdiction case of Nasibullah Khan vs. The East Central Railway, [C.W Case No.7343 of 2020], chaired by Justice Chakradhari Sharan.
The petitioner, who was posted as, assistant sub-inspector of police, was arrested by CBI under the corruption charges. A criminal case was registered u/s 7 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. He was placed under suspension on 05.11.2014 and subsequently a departmental proceeding was initiated and inquiry report submitted on 15.01.2016. Approximately three and half years later from the date of submission of the inquiry report, the petitioner received a charge memo & the statement of imputation of misconduct from the East Central Railway. The charge memo earlier issued to the petitioner on Patna High Court CWJC No.7343 of 2020 dt.01-12-2020 01.04.2015 and the present one, it can be easily seen that both relate to the same occurrence of the petitioner’s arrest by the CBI team on 05.11.2014. Hence the petitioner has challenged the said letter No. 963 dated 24.02.2020 issued by respondent No.4.
After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the councils, the hon’ble HC observed that, “In the present case the date of the order which is sought to be revised in purported exercise of power under Rule 219.4 is dated 05.05.2016. There is no provision under the Rule which has been shown to the Court which enables the superior authority/revisional authority to exercise power under Rule 219.4 of the Rules even after lapse of one year from the date of an order sought to be revised under the said rules.” The bench further added that, the impugned order does not conform to the requirement of the mandatory Patna High Court CWJC No.7343 of 2020 dt.01-12-2020 statutory provisions under Rule 219.4 of the Rules. The impugned order is, accordingly, not sustainable and, is, therefore, set aside.
In lieu of the above made considerations and observations, the bench in this present case allowed the civil writ application.