1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1858 of 2016 ------- Kartik Kumar Prabhat son of Late Puna Ram, resident of Saraitand (New Area), Morhabadi, P.O- Ranchi University, P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand At-Project Building, P.O & P.S. -Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3.The Secretary Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, At Project Building, P.O and P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. … … Respondents ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Baidh Nath Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, J.C to S.C. (L & C) ------ C.A.V on 15.02.2017 Delivered on 02/03/2017 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing resolution as contained in Memo dated 02.02.2012 and Memo dated 09.10.2015, whereby punishment of (a)stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect (b).No promotion for three years from the due date & (c).No payment for suspension period other than subsistence grant; was imposed upon the petitioner and further prayer has been made to release the entire amount of salary for the suspension period along with increments and further to grant promotion to the petitioner from the due date after quashing the punishment orders.
2. Brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner, belonging to Deputy Commissioner Cadre, while discharging his duties as Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi between 30.03.2006 to 10.04.2008 vide order dated 13.10.2010, 2 he was put under suspension on the charge of extending illegal benefit to Mrs. Menon Ekka by granting permission to sale and purchase of land belonging to Scheduled Tribe and memo of charge in form “K” was served upon him. Pursuant to the said charge, the petitioner submitted his defence statement before the conducting officer, who after conducting the enquiry submitted his report and pursuant thereto, the petitioner was asked to submit his show cause reply against major punishment, vide Annexure 10 to the writ application, to which petitioner replied. The disciplinary authority after considering the materials available on record, passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2012, vide Annexure 13 of the writ application. Against which the petitioner preferred appeal, which stood rejected vide order dated 09.10.2015.
3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority, the petitioner left with no efficacious and alternative remedy, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing has submitted that the entire proceeding has been conducted in a perfunctory manner since neither the relevant records was supplied nor the petitioner was afforded opportunity to examine the defence witnesses. Learned counsel further submitted that while passing the impugned order under Rule 167 (F) of the Bihar Board Misc. Rules has been given a complete go by thereby 3 rendering the impugned order nugatory. Learned counsel further submitted that due to non-observance of principles of natural justice gross prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, hence, the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority being confirmed by the appellate authority are sought to be assailed on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.
5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that show cause notice was issued by the Additional S.P., Department of Vigilance, Ranchi, to which, the petitioner replied and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Vigilance Bureau, Jharkhand recommended to take disciplinary action against him. In the light of gravity of the said charge, the petitioner was suspended and memo of charge in Form-'K' was constituted against him and departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, in which, Smt. Mridula Sinha, I.A.S, the then Secretary, H.R.D. Department, Jharkhand was appointed the conducting officer, who submitted her report finding the charges levelled against the petitioner proved, as evident from Annexures B to E to the counter affidavit. The conducting officer opined that the word 'Resident' is well defined in the C.N.T. Act and the petitioner in gross violation of Section 46 and 48 of the C.N.T Act gave permission for sale of tribal lands, therefore, action of the petitioner was actuated by malafide intention. Basing on the finding of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority proposed the punishment of major penalty, accordingly, second show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner replied. Considering the 4 reply submitted by the petitioner, impugned order was passed vide resolution dated 02.02.2012, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority.
6. J.C to learned S.C. (L & C), learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that neither there was any procedural irregularity nor the findings of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority are based on no evidence, therefore, the impugned orders needs no interference by this Court.
7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I).In the case at hand, two-folds charges have been levelled against the petitioner in prapatra - “K”, with regard to extending illegal benefit to Mrs. Menon Ekka by granting permission for sale and purchase of land belonging to Scheduled Tribe in utter violation provision of of Section 46 and 48 of the C.N.T Act. The allegations, which have been levelled against the petitioner have been enquired by the conducting officer after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the enquiry officer after adhering to the principles of natural justice issued second show cause notice, which has been replied by the petitioner. Considering the reply as well as materials available on record, impugned punishment has been imposed, which has been confirmed in appeal. Therefore, from the initiation of departmental proceeding till its 5 culmination,there has been no procedural irregularity and on that score, the impugned orders cannot be found faulted with. (ii).So far as evidences, which have surfaced against the petitioner is concerned, the allegations have been enquired by the enquiry officer and alleged involvement of petitioner in transfer of land belonging to Scheduled Tribe has been made in violation of provision of Section 46 and 48 of the C.N.T Act. (iii).On perusal of Section 46 of the C.N.T Act, 1908, which speaks about “Restrictions on transfer of their right by raiyat”, it is quite explicit that the word resident as used in Section 46 of the C.N.T Act means one having a permanent place of abode and does not include temporary or occasional resident. Therefore, the evidence recorded by the enquiry officer insinuating the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged sale and purchase of the land belonging to Scheduled Tribe has been proved, as evident from enquiry report. (iv).In the case in hand, in view of the seriousness of allegation and misconduct committed by the petitioner, the power of judicial review cannot be applied and moreover the fact finding given by the enquiry officer based on the material on record cannot be interfered with, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Another as reported in (2009) 8 SCC310 specially at paragraph 15, which is quoted herein below:
“15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making 6 process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions ………”
8. On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and applying the aforesaid principles of Hon’ble Apex Court, as indicated herein above, the impugned order of punishment dated 02.02.2012 (Annexure
13) and order passed appellate authority dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure
16) confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority, do not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition, sans merit, is dismissed. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-