1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6967 of 2013 ------- Mukhu Ram, son of late Ram Prasad Ram, resident of Samlong, P.O & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Posted as Leave Reserve Officer at the office of Joint Director of Agriculture at Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, Ranchi, District Ranchi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi 2.The Director, Agriculture, Government of Jharkhand, Laxmi Niwas, Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, Ranchi 3.The Secretary to the Government, Department, of Agriculture & Sugar Cane Development, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 4.The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Agriculture & Sugar Cane Development, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 5.The Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Agriculture & Sugar Cane Development, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi .… … ... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. D.K. Dubey, Sr.S.C. I Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, JC to Sr.S.C. I ------ 03/ Dated:
25. h July, 2016 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 20.09.2012, whereby impugned order of punishment awarding the following penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner: (i)Withholding five annual increments for the period of five years with cumulative effect; (ii).Prohibiting him not to be posted in any responsible post in future. (iii).Giving him warning for future; (iv).He shall be only entitled for subsistence allowance for the period of suspension; And further for quashing appellate order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the 2 petitioner thereby confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and; further for direction upon the respondents to release the salary for the entire period of suspension and other payable allowances.
2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner while working as Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer- cum-I/C of District Agriculture Officer, Pakur was put under suspension and was served with a memo of charge, containing mainly two charges, as follows: (i)Charge No. 1: He has committed serious irregularities during the period of his posting. (ii).Charge No. 2: He is not vigilant towards discharge of his duties and not having sincerity and interest for the S.C & S.T people as a result of which agriculture work stood affected despite the favourable season. In pursuance of the framing of charge, Enquiry Officer was appointed, who enquired into the matter and submitted its report and basing on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority found some of the charges to be partially proved and some of the charges not proved and passed the impugned order of punishment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order impugned, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority by cryptic and non-speaking order has rejected the appeal of the petitioner, whereby confirming the order of disciplinary authority.
3. Left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy under article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances.
4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that out of 10 charges levelled against the 3 petitioner not a single charge has been proved to the hilt. It has further been submitted that four charges have not been proved and rest charges have been partially proved, which are not tenable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that before infliction of punishment neither the copy of enquiry report was served upon the petitioner nor second show cause noticed was given to the petitioner, which has materially affected the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the initiation of departmental proceeding till its culmination, there has been procedural irregularities, which has ultimately affected the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to buttress his argument has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Union of India & Anr Vs. S.C. Parashar as reported in (2006) 3 SCC167, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that infliction of both minor and major penalties by same order could not have been given by the disciplinary authority, as it is against the settled position of law. On the question of non-supply of enquiry report, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors as reported in (1993) 4 SCC727and also the judgment rendered in the case of Satyendra Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors as reported in 2013 (4) JLJR498.
6. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, controverting the averments made in the writ application. Mr. D.K. Dubey, Sr. S.C I, learned counsel for the respondents-State assisted by Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, J.C to Sr. S.C. I submitted that on the basis of charge framed against the petitioner, departmental proceeding was initiated and after affording sufficient 4 opportunity to the petitioner to place his case, the enquiry officer submitted its report to the disciplinary authority, who inflicted the impugned punishment in commensurate with the proved misconduct. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has not been fully exonerated from the charges levelled against him, hence, he is not entitled to the full salary of the suspension period under Rule 97 (2) of the Bihar Service Code.
7. After giving my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of punishment dated 20.09.2012 vide Annexure 4 and appellate order dated 24.09.2013 are not legally sustainable for the following facts and reasons: (I).Admittedly, the impugned order of punishment dated 20.09.2012 is an amalgamation of minor and major punishment, which is against the settled position of law, as enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr Vs. S.C. Parashar (Supra) , therefore, on this count, the impugned order is not sustainable. (ii).Furthermore, in the case at hand, neither copy of enquiry report nor second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before infliction of punishment, which is sine qua non for proper disciplinary proceeding and in absence of copy of enquiry report, the delinquent-petitioner would not have been in a position to rebut the allegation levelled against him. Therefore, there has been complete violation of principles of natural justice, which has caused prejudiced to the petitioner and it ultimately affected the outcome of the departmental proceeding. (iii).The appellate authority has also confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority without going into these aspects of the 5 matter, hence, the appellate order, being cryptic is also not sustainable in law.
8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and logical sequitur to the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of punishment dated 20.09.2012 vide Annexure 4 and appellate order dated 24.09.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside.
9. However, the respondents are at liberty to start a proceeding afresh from the stage of supply of enquiry report and 2nd show cause notice to arrive at a fresh decision, in accordance with law and if such proceeding is started, it is made clear that the same must be concluded as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of initiation of such proceeding.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-