Manoj Kumar Mishra vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Prashant Kumar, J.—This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.12.2008, whereby the respondent No. 4 has passed the final order in the departmental proceeding and imposed punishment of withholding of increment for six months with cumulative effect. The petitioner further prays for quashing the order dated 26.02.2014 passed by appellate authority. It is submitted by Sri Onkar Nath Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner that from perusal of impugned order, it is clear that none of the witnesses stated anything against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner took the defence that from 18.03.2008 to 23.03.2008, he was on leave, therefore, the question of sending information, regarding the absence of Constable No. 336 Ashok Kumar to the Headquarter, by him does not arise. He submits that the respondent No. 4 has not considered the aforesaid aspects and in a most arbitrary and mechanical manner passed the impugned order. It is submitted that even the appellate authority has not considered the aforesaid submission of the petitioner.

Sri K.M. Verma, learned G.P.I., after going through the impugned order, has submitted that in fact the respondent No. 4 had agreed with the inquiry and pass the final order, therefore, the respondent No. 4 is not required to give separate reason for passing the impugned order. Accordingly, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. In the impugned order, the respondent No. 4 had recapitulated the statements of four departmental witnesses. From perusal of the said evidence, I find that none of the aforesaid witnesses stated anything against this petitioner. The Commandant had also mentioned the defence taken by the petitioner, but he has not applied his independent mind on the aforesaid evidences as well as the defence. On query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the enquiry report has not been served upon the petitioner. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find that the order impugned will become illegal being violative of the principles of natural justice.

From perusal of order passed by the appellate authority, I find that the appeal has been dismissed only because the same was filed after five years from the date of impugned order contained in Annexure-3. Thus, the appellate authority has not considered the merit of the case.

In my view, since the departmental witnesses had not stated anything against the petitioner, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the case be remitted back to the respondent No. 4 for reconsideration of the same and passing order in accordance with law, after service of the inquiry report to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I allow this application and quash the impugned orders dated 31.12.2008 and 26.02.2014 (Annexure-3 & 4) and remit the case back to the file of respondent No. 4 with a direction to serve a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and give him opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass fresh order in accordance with law.