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
, [C.W Case No.7343 of 2020], chaired by Justice Chakradhari
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 petitionerís arrest by the CBI team on
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 honíble HC observed that, ďIn 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.Ē
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.
Written By: Prime Legal Law Firm
Off Address: 39/2, 2nd floor, K G Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560001
Phone no: +9986386002, Email: [email protected]