Dr. Jyoti Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the resolutions of Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of Personnel

Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha as contained in memo no. 2/Arop-03-03/2009- Kaa/11258 dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure-3) whereby the

petitioner has been inflicted punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect as well as censor and also for quashing the order as

contained in memo no. Arop- 909/2014 Kaa 4279 dated 13.05.2015 (Annexure-5) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner after passing the first joint competitive examination held by the Jharkhand Public

Service Commission was appointed and posted in the rank of Deputy Collector as Block Development Officer, Mohanpur, in the District of Deoghar

on 30.11.2007. The case of the petitioner is that the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar due to personal dislike and apathy against the petitioner sent

a confidential report to Secretary, Rural Development Department Govt. of Jharkhand with a copy to Deputy Secretary Personnel, Administrative

Reforms and Rajbhasha along with charges framed against the petitioner and recommended for his suspension and initiation of departmental enquiry

vide his letter dated 22.12.2008. The charges were relating to period of alleged omissions and commissions for about 12 months before, thereafter, a

departmental proceeding was initiated and charges were proved. It is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry officer never took any pain to call for

the witnesses despite several requests made by the petitioner and he also did not allow the petitioner to adduce evidences in his favor and also denied

the opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses. Subsequently, after the enquiry report a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner

for inflicting punishment upon him. The petitioner duly replied to the said second show-cause notice denying on each and every point of the enquiry

officer, however, the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment whereby three annual increment with cumulative effect was reduced along

with the order of censor. Even the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made only one submission that the disciplinary authority while rejecting his second show cause notice

and inflicting him the penalty of reduction of increment did not assign any reason and hence, the impugned order of punishment is rendered bad in law.

He further submits that though there were several discrepancies in the finding of enquiry officer who recommended for punishment to which the

petitioner has given a detailed reply to the second show cause notice, however, for the reason best known to the disciplinary authority, he did not took

any point in consideration and passed the order of punishment. He further submits that while going through the entire charges, it appears that it suffers

from bias which has been duly explained by this petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice, but the disciplinary authority in one line

rejected the entire contentions by holding that in the second show cause notice no new facts has been given by the delinquent employee, as such, he is

being punished for reduction of three annual increment with cumulative effect along with the order of censor. Even the appeal preferred by the

petitioner has been rejected without assigning any reason.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State reiterated its stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submits that there is no error in the impugned order

and the departmental proceeding has been done after giving proper opportunities to the petitioner. Regarding point raised related to non-speaking

order, he contended that the same has been raised at the time of hearing and the said ground was never raised before appellate authority or in the writ

application.

Thus, the only question which is to be decided by this Court is as to whether the impugned order has been passed with non-application of mind or

not. In this regard operative portion of the order of punishment is quoted herein below:-

◌

- - 3456

- . 05.04.2013 -5669 - 7321

- 12.08.2013 -

31 -28.08.2013

,

-

From plain reading of the entire impugned order, it appears that the disciplinary authority has first reproduced the charges and the findings of the

enquiry report and the factual aspects and in just two lines he has stated that in reply to the second show cause notice no new facts has been

submitted by the petitioner, hence, the same is rejected. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has given a detailed point wise

reply running into more than 15 pages has been burst-aside by the disciplinary authority. He did not took pain of discussing any of the contention raised

by the petitioner made in his reply to the second show cause notice and passed the order of punishment. Just for the sake of example one of the

charge inflicted on the petitioner was with respect to none residing at headquarter. In this regard, the petitioner has categorically stated that the

quarter was situated in the Naxal affected area and there was no arrangement of any security and even the police station was about 2 km away from

the quarter. As such, he was not able to live in the said quarter because of the security reason and he was residing in the rented quarter within the

limit as prescribed by the Government. In the said charge he has also given facts of two three events in which the Naxal has killed one contractor.

However, without discussing anything about the contention of the petitioner, the said charge has been proved by the enquiry officer and the same has

been totally accepted by the disciplinary authority without discussing anything, thus, it would not be incorrect to say that the disciplinary authority did

not apply his independent mind rather acted solely on the recommendation of enquiry officer and without considering even a single contention of the

petitioner which has been raised by him in the reply to second show-cause. Further, a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would

only reveal the total non- application of mind by the Appellate Authority.

Now it is a settled proposition of law that how far grave the offence may be, but the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are required to

pass a reasoned order, after discussing all the contention raised by the delinquent employee.

In the instant case, the same is missing. At the cost of repetition, the disciplinary authority after reproducing the whole facts and development of the

case in one line held that the reply to the second show cause notice is not acceptable to him as no new facts has been brought by the petitioner. The

appellate authority too by simply adopting the language employed by the disciplinary authority, refused to interfere with the dismissal order.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and the judgment referred to hereinabove, I hereby quashed and set aside the

impugned orders dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative

effect as well as censor and also the order as contained in memo no. Arop-909/2014 Kaa 4279 dated 13.05.2015 (Annexure-5) whereby the appeal

preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and remit the case back to the disciplinary authority (respondent No.5) with a direction to pass a fresh

order after considering the stand of the petitioner made in his reply to the second show cause notice and pass a fresh order.

With the aforesaid direction the instant application is allowed and disposed of.