Wednesday, November 4, 2020

The strange case of Nitish's dissenting voice within NDA

From opposing the NPR and NRC to demanding particular standing for Bihar to staying out of the Union Cupboard on precept to displaying the BJP who was boss in Bihar, Nitish Kumar has wasted no alternative at cocking a snook on the BJP management.

However how lengthy can he proceed, asks Gopal Krishna. 

As a consequence of the protest by the Communist Celebration of India-Marxist-Leninist, Congress and Rashtriya Janata Dal in opposition to the Nationwide Inhabitants Register/Nationwide Register of Residents,the Bihar meeting unanimously handed a decision to not implement the NRC within the state and in opposition to the brand new format of the NPR on February 25, 2020.

It was a results of the dialog between the Opposition events and the Janata Dal-United. The Bharatiya Janata Celebration was constrained to assist the decision at the same time as its Jan Jagran Abhiyan was underway to make individuals conscious concerning the CAA, NRC and NPR in several districts of Bihar.

Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi, the BJP chief within the legislative council, had introduced that ‘the primary section of Census 2021 and the method of the Nationwide Inhabitants Register in Bihar could be achieved between the interval of Might 15 and June 28, 2020’.

Modi had additionally tweeted saying that the Bihar authorities has issued a notification on December 18, 2019 to this impact. ‘No authorities has the braveness to cease the NPR train of their respective states,’ he added.

As an alternative of endorsing the BJP’s place, JD-U President and Chief Minister Nitish Kumar assured the Bihar meeting that the NRC is not going to be carried out within the state and the NPR could be carried out in its outdated, 2010, format.

The CM took the place that he had no drawback if the Home took a unanimous resolution to not implement the NRC within the state. This place was supported by the Chief of Opposition Tejaswi Yadav following which the Home unanimously handed a decision for a similar to the BJP’s dismay.

Such a categorical place revealed that the JD-U is among the Opposition voices throughout the BJP-led Nationwide Democratic Alliance. After the exit of the Shiv Sena and Akali Dal, it stays the one dissenting voice throughout the NDA. Rashtriya Lok Samta Party too left the NDA in 2018. 

Inspired by the passage of the unanimous decision on the NPR/NRC, the JD-U president reiterated his demand for particular class standing to the state on the twenty fourth Japanese Zonal Council assembly chaired by Union Residence Minister Amit Anilchandra Shah in Bhubaneswar.

Notably, the Bihar meeting has handed a unanimous decision asking the state authorities to take an all-party delegation to Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi on this regard.

The JD-U had submitted 1.25 crore signatures in assist of the demand in 2011 to the prime minister. In 2012, the JD-U president took out an Adhikar Yatra, organised rallies in Patna and Delhi in assist of the demand.

Particular standing for Bihar has been a difficulty since 2006. It was the JD-U’s fundamental promise within the 2009 Lok Sabha polls, the 2010 meeting polls, after which the 2014 Lok Sabha and the 2015 meeting polls.

The BJP-led NDA authorities has betrayed the individuals of Bihar, because the PM had promised particular standing to the state throughout his 2014 Lok Sabha ballot marketing campaign.

The JD-U president had raised the problem on the Inter-State Council assembly in Delhi in July 2016. In Might 2017, he sought particular standing and help for Bihar in a three-page letter submitted to the prime minister.

Besides from June 2013 to August 2017, the JD-U has been part of the NDA since its inception. In 2019, the JD-U president determined in opposition to becoming a member of the Union Cupboard as a result of its proposal for proportionate illustration within the authorities didn’t get a constructive response.

The BJP management was providing just one Cupboard ministership as a symbolic gesture, a proposal the Lok Janshakti Celebration readily accepted.

The JD-U has 16 Lok Sabha MPs and 6 Rajya Sabha MPs. However the central authorities remained deaf to its argument that it had given proportionate illustration to the BJP within the state authorities regardless of the JD-U not being included within the first Union Cupboard constituted in 2014.

Instantly after the JD-U president returned to Patna after attending the swearing-in ceremony of Prime Minister Modi and his council of ministers, he despatched a transparent message to the BJP with the enlargement of his state cupboard that the BJP might management the Centre however in Bihar the JD-U’s is the final phrase.

He unequivocally spoke in opposition to ‘sanketic pratnidhitav (symbolic illustration)’ which has been accepted by events just like the LJP. Responding to the therapy by the BJP management, he expanded his cupboard in Bihar with eight JD-U ministers.

It’s tough to recall cases whereby the BJP management agreed to any of the JD-U chief’s calls for within the curiosity of Bihar.

The supreme BJP chief publicly refused the JD-U president’s proposal for Patna College to be declared as a central college in October 2017.

On the event of the centenary celebration of Patna College’s central library, in August 2019, Nitish Kumar reiterated his demand for the standing of central college for Patna College, however to no avail.

Most not too long ago, on September 21, 2020, when Nitish Kumar emphasised the necessity to prolong the Purvanchal Expressway, which connects Ghazipur district in Japanese Uttar Pradesh with Lucknow to Buxar, the supreme BJP chief selected to not give a constructive response.

The extension of the highway by one other 17 kilometres from Ghazipur to Buxar might help Bihar join instantly with the nationwide capital.

The denial of Bihar’s share of oblique tax income beneath the GST regime is round Rs 12,000 crore for 2020-2021. That is more likely to develop into an election concern.

Bihari events can be part of palms to withstand such financial injustice the best way Punjabi events have joined palms on the problem of agriculture and farmer associated legal guidelines. The JD-U has been in alliance with virtually each social gathering in Bihar, together with the CPI and CPI-ML, within the latest previous.

The JD-U’s absence from the NDA authorities on the Centre and the absence of Ram Vilas Paswan, the one Cupboard minister from among the many BJP allies within the state, has created a brand new state of affairs.

Until now solely the supreme chief has been chopping him all the way down to dimension to disclaim him a fourth time period as chief minister, however now it appears the brand new LJP supremo has been unleashed on him to silence the final dissenting voice throughout the NDA.

There are not less than two sorts of Opposition voices — one is carnivorous and the opposite is herbivorous.

Historical past reveals that each get tamed by some means by the donors by State energy, however data reveal who remained a dissenting voice and a voice of the individuals amidst all of the structural compulsions engineered by limitless nameless donors.

The temptation to readily fall prey to lazy binaries and dualities makes one miss myriad layers of opposition in world politics in addition to native politics.

If one stays hostage to pre-existing language which is caught in a time warp, one is left with the posh of post-result evaluation.

As to the guarantees being made publicly by the BJP with regard to his management in Bihar, one is reminded of what British parliamentarian Edmund Burke mentioned in December 1783 concerning the East India Firm: ‘The Firm has by no means made a treaty which they haven’t damaged.’

https://www.rediff.com/news/column/strange-case-of-nitishs-dissenting-voice-within-nda/20201030.htm

Monday, November 2, 2020

Supreme Court asks Bihar DGP, High Court Registrar General reasons behind 21 year delay

Supreme Court's Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose heard an appeal on October 15, 2020 filed by the accused husband in a dowry death case in Bachcha Pandey v State of Bihar [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4769/2020].The appeal arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated July 6, ­2020 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.21680/2020 passed by Justice Madhuresh Prasad of the Patna High Court. It upheld High Court's order. 

In its order, the Supreme Court observed: "The materials placed on record indicate a shocking state of affairs." The order records the sequence of events. In this case a First Information Report was registered as far back as on February 2, 1999 against Bachcha Pandey, the petitioner and some of his relatives under Sections 304B, 201 and 34, IPC based on a complaint made  by the brother of  the  deceased (wife  of  the  Petitioner). A perusal of the records suggest that the petitioner got married to the   deceased in 1993. The deceased was allegedly  harassed continuously by the petitioner and his family for dowry, and was even thrown out by the petitioner and his family, after they took her jewellery. The deceased apparently started living with the petitioner and his family again, consequent to an agreement prepared  by the petitioner in court. It was alleged by the complainant that he was informed by unknown persons about the death of his sister, whose funeral ceremonies were being completed by the petitioner and his family without informing the deceased’s side of the family.   

The court's order records that after nearly 10 years, a final report/charge­sheet was filed in the case against all the accused named in the FIR, including the petitioner, on September 30, 2009. The final report notes that “sufficient evidence has been made available for charge­sheet against all the accused  named in the FIR”.   

Besides this, the order dated February 14, 2020, passed by the Patna High Court while dismissing the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application, being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 64116 of 2019, noted that as per the case diary a “very highly poisonous substance was detected in the viscera examination of the deceased”. 

The court observed that despite the seriousness of the allegations, it is quite alarming that no actions  were taken by the police against the petitioner. After the elapse of more than 20 years since the incident  and the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was arrested in relation to the case only on June 7, 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a bail application before the Additional District and Sessions Judge  which was rejected on June 12, 06.2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a bail application before the High Court, being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21680 of 2020, which was dismissed vide  impugned order dated July 6, 2020. 

The court's order reads: "The flagrant delay in conducting the investigation and prosecution of the accused  in connection with the serious crime involving the death of a young married woman is extremely troubling, and the reasons for the same are unclear. In the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court, or to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner. His plea is therefore dismissed at this stage." The petitioner from Vaishali had challenged the aforementioned order before the Supreme Court  by way of the present Special Leave Petition.  

The court issued notice to the Director General of Police, Bihar as well as the Registrar General of the Patna High Court with a direction to them to place before us a report about the particulars of the present case, particularly with respect to the reasons behind such inordinate delay. The matter is likely to be listed before the court on November 11-12 after four weeks. 

Supreme Court asks Registrar General, Patna High Court to explain inordinate delay in uploading order

On October 15, 2020 Supreme Court's Bench of Justices S K Kaul and Dinesh Maheswari heard a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 9469 of 2020 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated January 24, 2018 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 2138/2016 passed by Patna High Court in the matter of State of Bihar v Raj Kumar Yadav. 

Upon hearing the matter, the Supreme Court passed an order. The order reads: "There is an inordinate delay of 733 days as stated by the learned counsel (not 333 days as set out in the application and the office report). This aspect be verified by the Registry." It further reads: "We find from the averments made in paragraph 4 of the application that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 24th January, 2018 but was uploaded on the website on 1st May, 2019." 

The court directed: "We call upon the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to submit the report to us whether the aforesaid facts are correct and the reasons for the same. List on 28th October, 2020. A copy of the order be forthwith forwarded to the Registrar General, Patna High Court." 

Notably, the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No.2138 of 2016 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6299 of 2014 was heard in the High Court by the Division Bench of Chief Justices Rajendra Menon, and Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay on January 24, 2018. The Appellants were: the State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, the Joint Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, the Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Muzaffarpur, the Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Muzaffarpur and the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Dhaka, East Champaran. The repondent was Raj Kumar Yadav, Son of Sri Deo Narayan Yadav, Resident of Village Dhobiyahi, P.O.-Vijiyatola Bela Singar Mositola Dhobiya, Via- Nirmali, P.s.-Nirmali, District- Supaul. The appeal of the State was dismissed. 

The dismissal order of the Chief Justice headed Division Bench is as under:

1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 149 days in filing the appeal. 

2. For the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory application, I.A. No. 8943 of 2016 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. This is an appeal filed by the State Government calling in question tenability of order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 6299 of 2014.

4. Writ petitioner along with six other persons approached this Court challenging their disengagement as Chowkidar brought into force with effect from 22.01.2014. Even though the petitioner was found to have been engaged in the Work-charged Establishment w.e.f.17.01.1991, he has been denied regularization on the ground that his appointment was after cut-off date 18.01.1991, whereas in the case of other six similarly situated persons, who also visited this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5509 of 2002 along with the petitioner, they have been reinstated and granted the benefit only on account of the fact that they were appointed vide letter dated 31.12.1990 before the cut-off date. The learned Writ Court examined the issue and found that the petitioner was also engaged much earlier, but merely because of the hyper technical view of the State Government, he is denied similar benefit like the other employees, who are appointed few days before the petitioner. The learned Writ Court found that there has been discrimination in the matter and granted relief to the petitioner.

5. In doing so, we are of the considered view that the learned Writ Court has not committed any error. We find that the petitioner was initially engaged as Chowkidar in work-charged establishment on daily wage basis along with 8 persons and when the other 8 persons have been granted the benefit, merely on the hyper technical ground of engagement of the petitioner after a few days of the cut-off date the benefit could not be denied taking note of the fact that he was engaged as daily wages employee and the employer initially had done in the case of other seven employees before bringing them into the work-charged establishment. The learned Writ Court having analyzed all these factors and having issued the direction, the State Government as a model employer should have implemented the same, as was done in the case of other six employees.

6. Accordingly taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances, we see no reason to make any indulgence into the matter.

7. The appeal stands dismissed.

The proceedings of the High Court reveals that this appeal was filed against the order of Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi dated April 25, 2016 in Raj Kumar Yadav v State of Bihar & others. 

Justice Tripathi's order reveals that petitioner decided to file the writ application when he felt discriminated by the respondent’s decision not to regularize his service despite working in the work- charged establishment from the year 1991. By virtue of the decisions in question, the petitioner’s engagement as a Choukidar has been brought to an end with effect from July 31, 2014. The petitioner was engaged on January 17, 1991 by the Executive Engineer, Dhaka to work as a Choukidar. That engagement continued for quite some time. However, in between the petitioner was disengaged with similarly appointed persons, some of the names are indicated in paragraph 3 of the writ application. When such decision was taken, the petitioner along with others moved the High Court. The High Court intervened and petitioner continued to discharge his duty on the basis of order passed in CWJC No.2262 of 1997. Again the same fate visited the petitioner and some others when CWJC No.5509 of 2002 was filed and interim protection was granted. Petitioner along with others was reinstated. Subsequently the exercise for regularization was taken up by the respondent authorities. The respondents decided to regularize six of the persons, who were petitioners before the High Court earlier, but left out the name of the petitioner for such regularization on the ground that petitioner’s engagement has been after December 11, 1990, the cut-off date. 

Ramendra Nath Mukhopadhaya, the petitioner's lawyer submitted that the reasons provided or given by the respondents in their counter affidavit is not only erroneous but even fallacious and misleading. They are trying to make a hyper distinction between the engagement or appointment of the petitioner vis-à-vis other similarly situated persons on various posts. Yet another distinction provided was that one of the person though appointed after the petitioner was engaged as a Jeep Driver, therefore, his case is different from that of the petitioner.  

The court went through the so-called letters of engagement and appointments of some of the other persons, who have been regularized.

Justice Tripathi observed: "The issue is regularization of such persons by virtue of long stint of work and has nothing to do with the post on such engagements are made. The engagement of the petitioner and the others, who are regularized, have been done by the same authority in similar kind of time frame, may be with the difference of a month or two but the basic fact of their engagement and continuance since then cannot be a subject matter of dispute and the distinction sought to be drawn for conferring benefit of regularization on some and leaving out the case of the petitioner does not seem to be on cogent and for valid reason."

He further observed: "It is also taken note of that merely because the petitioner continued by virtue of a judicial order that cannot work against him because it is the continuance whether by indulgence shown by the State or protection given by the Court, will make no difference. It is the length of service and continuance which brings such persons within the zone of consideration for regularization."

He concluded: "The State, therefore, cannot be permitted to discriminate on grounds, which are not germane to the basic issue of regularization. The Court opines that the case of the present petitioner and the background thereto is no different than some of the other persons, who have been conferred the benefit of regularization." He quashed the impugned orders of the state. 

Justice Tripathi allowed the writ with directions saying, "The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the work- charged establishment under the respondents within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order." 

Now the case is in the Supreme Court and has been heard with a Diary Number. It has not be allotted any case number as yet. The information available on Supreme Court's website and causelist does not indicate that the matter was on October 28, 2020 before Justice Kaul Bench. 



Sunday, November 1, 2020

District Judge, Aurangabad assaulted by a S.I. of Bihar Police

On October 21, 2020 an the unprecedented, unwarranted assault and intimidation occurred with  Dr. Dinesh Pradhan, District Judge, Aurangabad, Bihar by Bihar Police. Bihar Judicial Services Association and Association for Judges, Gujarat has condemned the incident.

Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) has taken note of the Letter of Condemnation dated October 31, 2020 in the matter of unprecedented and unwarranted assault on Dr. Dinesh Pradhan, District Judge, Aurangabad, Bihar on October 21, 2020 by S.I. Pranav of Bihar Police in reaction to action against him and a few other police officers by Judge Dr. Pradhan for dereliction of duty a few months back when he was the chief judicial magistrate, Aurangabad. 

CFCL has sought details of the letters/statements of Bihar Judicial Services Association including its  October 24 letter to DGP and letters/statements of All India Judges Association. It is also looking for a copy of the Aurangabad DM's order initiating an inquiry into the matter, written application against erring police personnel with Town Police Station prior to the incident and after the incident. It is not clear as yet whether Supreme Court or High Court has taken cognisance of the letters in this regard.  

Association of Judges have rightly said that "This is not an assault on and insult with Dr. Pradhan   only  but   is   assault   on   and   insult   of the whole subordinate Judiciary of the nation." Unless higher judiciary ensures stringent exemplary action, the day is not far when the spark will reach the judges of High Courts and Supreme Court. State Government is expected to act immediately against the erring policemen after the elections. 

Two urgent issues around Bihar Assembly Elections 2020

Issue 1: Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)'s petition challenging Finance Act, 2017- Electoral Bonds and Removal of company's limit to donate


This petition challenges the Finance Act, 2017 which was enacted as a money bill which introduced the electoral bond scheme for the purpose of electoral funding. The Act has also removed the previous limit of 7.5% of the company’s average three-year net profit for political donations. A company is no longer required to name the political parties to which such contributions are made. The donors’ name is also not revealed to the public. These amendments will result in opaqueness, heighten the odds of conflict of interest and also drastically increase black money and corruption. It will also lead to the creation of shell companies and rise of benami transactions to channelize the undocumented money into the political and electoral process in India.

Previously, ADR had filed two applications (in March, 2019 and November, 2019) for grant of stay on the implementation of the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018, notified by the Central Government on January 2, 2018.   

  Status  
  1. ADR's petition was last heard by the Supreme Court on 20-01-2020 and hasn't been listed since then, i.e., for the last 9 months, even though very significant questions concerning democratic functioning of the country are raised in the instant matter which requires urgent adjudication. 
  2. Right before the Bihar Legislative Elections, in the XIV Phase of sale,  the State Bank of India has been authorized to issue and encash Electoral Bonds through its 29 Authorized branches with effect from. 19.10.2020 to 28.10.2020.
  3. Even though a notification, dated 02.01.2018, stipulates sale of electoral bonds in January, April, July and October months of each year; the window was not opened in April and July, but was opened in October'20, right before the Bihar Legislative Elections.
  4.  ADR has moved to the Supreme Court amidst Bihar Assembly Elections 2020 seeking urgent hearing of its 2017 PIL challenging the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme.

Issue 2: Reasons for fielding candidates with criminal background

Supreme Court directions dated 13th February 2020 is as under:  

1) It is mandatory for political parties at the Central and State election level to upload on their website detailed information regarding candidates with pending criminal cases including the nature of the offences, relevant particulars like whether charges have been framed, the concerned Court, the case number etc.

2) Political parties will also have to give reasons for such selection and why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.

3) The reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls. 

4) This information shall also be published in: (a)One local vernacular newspaper and one national newspaper; (b)On the official social media platforms of the political party, including Facebook & Twitter. 

5) These details shall be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks 4 before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.

6)  A report of compliance shall be submitted by party with the Election Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the said candidate.  

7) Election Commission shall bring such non-compliance by the political party concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this Court’s orders/directions.  

Status (As on 29th Oct'20)

1. In the ongoing Bihar Legislative Elections, only four* political parties ( JDU, INC, CPI(M-L)L and RJD) out of 187, have listed the reasons for fielding candidates with criminal background.
2. Common reasons listed by these political parties are:
  • Popularity
  • Social worker
  • Educational background
  • Cases filed due to political vendetta by rival political parties
  • Cases are old
  • Good effort put in for handling Covid-19 crisis
3. Most of the political parties submitted the reasons post the deadline. 
4. Most of the reasons given by political parties are not rational and justified as clearly directed by the Supreme Court in its order dated 13th February 2020.
5. It is to be noted that out of 187 political parties participating in these elections, there are a large number of political parties which do not have a website.

Taking note of these facts, Maj Gen Anil Verma (Retd.), Head of ADR said, "In the Bihar Phases I & 2, political parties fielded 33% candidates and in the MP, UP & Gujarat Bye-elections around 18% candidates have declared criminal cases against themselves. This shows a complete disregard of the SC & ECI directions by the political parties. Such unfounded and baseless reasons given by political parties like popularity of the person, does good social work, cases are politically motivated etc. are not sound and cogent reasons for fielding candidates with tainted backgrounds. This data clearly shows that political parties have no interest in reforming the electoral system and our democracy will continue to suffer at the hands of lawbreakers who become lawmakers. To strengthen our democracy, the voters have to play a decisive role in refusing to elect tainted candidates and vote for NOTA".

Patna High Court suspends 4 Judicial Officers pending disciplinary proceedings against them

Patna High Court has issued orders dated 19 October and 20 October 2020 suspending four judicial officers in the light of disciplinary proceedings pending against them. The officers placed under suspension including 1) Savita Rani - Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara (Civil Judge Senior Division), 2) Sanjeev Kumar Chandriyavi- Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patna (Civil Judge Senior Division), 3) Tribhuwan Nath- ADJ, Sheohar and 4) Ram Sujan Pandey-Sub-Judge III-cum Secretary, DLSA, Sheohar,

As per the order dated 19 October, 2020, a disciplinary proceeding against Savita Rani, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara (Civil Judge Sr. Division) is pending. Now, therefore, the Court, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, has placed Savita Rani, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara (Civil Judge Senior Division) under suspension with immediate effect and till the pendency of the enquiry or until further orders with her headquarters attached with the District Judgeship's at Ara (Bhojpur). It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force, the said, Savita Rani, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara (Civil Judge Senior Division) shall not leave the station without obtaining the previous permission. The officer shall be entitled to get subsistence allowance as per Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code during the suspension period. 

As per the dated 19 October, 2020, a disciplinary proceeding against Sanjeev Kumar Chandriyavi, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patna (Civil Judge Senior. Division) is pending. Now, therefore, the Court, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, places Sanjeev Kumar Chandriyavi, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patna (Civil Judge Senior Division) under suspension with immediate effect and till the pendency of the enquiry or until further orders with his headquarters attached with the District Judgeship's at Patna. It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force, the said, Sanjeev Kumar Chandriyavi, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patna (Civil Judge Senior Division) shall not leave the station without obtaining the previous permission. The officer shall be entitled to get subsistence allowance as per Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code during the suspension period. 

As per order dated 20th October, 2020, a disciplinary proceeding against Tribhuwan Nath, ADJ, Sheohar is pending. Now, the Court, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, has placed Tribhuwan Nath, ADJ, Sheohar under suspension with immediate effect and till the pendency of the enquiry or until further orders with his headquarters attached with the District Judgeship's at Sheohar. It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force, the said, Tribhuwan Nath, ADJ, Sheohar shall not leave the station without obtaining the previous permission. The officer shall be entitled to get subsistence allowance as per Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code during the suspension period. 

As per order dated 20th October, 2020, a disciplinary proceeding against Ram Sujan Pandey, Sub-JudgeIII-cum Secretary, DLSA, Sheohar is pending. Now, the Court, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, placed Ram Sujan Pandey, Sub-Judge-III-cum Secretary, DLSA, Sheohar under suspension with immediate effect and till the pendency of the enquiry or until further orders with his headquarters attached with the District Judgeship's at Sheohar. It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force, the said, Ram Sujan Pandey, Sub-Judge-HI-cum Secretary, DLSA, Sheohar shall not leave the station without obtaining the previous permission. The officer shall be entitled to get subsistence allowance as per Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code during the suspension period. 

The Court exercised its powers under Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The Rule empowers the “appointing authority” to suspend a government servant from service if disciplinary proceedings or criminal investigations have been initiated against them. An appointing authority may also suspend a government servant from service if the person has done an act prejudicial to the security of the state.