IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1581 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 453 of 2007 With Interlocutory Application No. 7394 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1581 of 2011 ====================================================== Anil Kumar, S/o Late Ishwar Sharan Lal, R/o Officers Colony, Ara, District-Bhojpur and presently residing at Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, Patna. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. Under Secretary, Finance Commercial Taxes Department, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Laxmi Narayan Das Mr. Akhilesh Dutta Verma Ms. Kumari Seema, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 21-11-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 7394 of 2011: The delay of 12 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1581 of 2011: Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15th July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 453 of 2007, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Patna High Court LPA No.1581 of 2011 (3) dt.21-11-2011 2 / 3 2 Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Under Notification dated 15th February 2006, a punishment of censure and withholding the three increments without cumulative effect came to be imposed upon the appellant, the then Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It was alleged that in 2000 when the appellant was Incharge Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madhubani, he refused to follow the order of the District Magistrate. For the said act of insubordination the above referred punishment was imposed upon the appellant. The challenge to the said order has failed before the learned single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Laxmi Narayan Das has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the direction issued by then District Magistrate was without the authority of law. The appellant was not supposed to comply with such direction. The appellant, therefore, cannot be said to have committed an act of insubordination. In support thereof, he has relied upon instruction dated 12th August 1992. He has submitted that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had issued direction that the District Magistrate shall not make order of transfer from the Department of Commercial Taxes; that the District Magistrate had no authority to make such transfer. Mr. Das has submitted that inspite of the aforesaid direction, the District Magistrate directed the appellant to perform the duty of a Sub-Treasury Officer. The appellant was justified in refusing to perform duty as the order was without the authority of law. Learned Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar has appeared for the respondents. He has submitted that at the relevant time, the Patna High Court LPA No.1581 of 2011 (3) dt.21-11-2011 3 / 3 3 officers in the Sub-Treasury had given a strike call and to meet the emergent situation the District Magistrate had issued direction to the appellant to perform the duty as Sub- Treasury Officer. Having regard to the emergency, the District Magistrate was justified in making the order complained of, the appellant could not have refused to comply with such direction. We have perused the aforesaid direction issued on 12th August 1992. It may be noted that the said direction was issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and not by the State Government. Besides, this being administrative direction would apply in normal circumstances. If the exigency so required, the District Magistrate would justiceably issue direction to meet with the emergent situation. If such direction were issued the appellant should have followed such direction. In any view of the matter the appellant could not have unilaterally decided that the order of deputation was made without jurisdiction. We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)