Raja Ram Mahato vs State of Jharkhand

Mr. Pramath Patnaik, J.—In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 01.12.2011, passed in memo no. 3356, by the Principal Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer related Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

Bereft on unnecessary details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application in brief is that while the petitioner was posted as Block Supply Officer (B.S.O)-cum-Marketing Officer (M.O.), on the basis of a complaint, lodged by the women self help group under the Pratappur Block (in short S.H.G) regarding undue demand by the petitioner to grant P.D.S. license, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide office order dated 23.11.2010 and thereafter, the charges were framed against the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his written explanation. The matter was enquired into by the inquiry officer and basing on the report of the inquiry officer, the impugned order of punishment dated 01.12.2011 been passed, containing two punishment:-

(i) Three annual increments have stopped with cumulative effect.

(ii) There will be no further payment of the period of suspension to be paid except the subsistence allowance that been paid, however there will be no break in service for the retrial benefits of him.

The order of the punishment dated 01.12.2011 been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ application.

Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order of punishment is fragile with infirmities. Since the copy of inquiry report not been supplied with infliction of the punishment, which materially affected the disciplinary proceeding because of non-supply of the inquiry report, the petitioner was deprived to put forth his defence against the findings of Enquiry Officer. But in the instant case there been non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report, which vitiated the whole proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the punishment, which been passed vide Annexure-9 to the writ application is a major punishment so that the second show notice ought to have been issued, but in the instant case, the same not been issued to the petitioner which is another infirmity, which materially affected the disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner have not been proved, but only on the basis of conjecture and surmises and on the basis of ipse dixit the punishment been imposed and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. During the pendency of writ application, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

Per-contra a counter-affidavit been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 controverting the averments made in the writ application. Mr. Anoop Agarwal, J.C to S.C.-V reiterated the submissions made in the counter-affidavit. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the State drawn the attention of the Court towards paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, where it been submitted that the authority rightly punished the petitioner for committing irregularities in discharge of his duties as Block Supply Officer. As a matter of fact, some women self help groups (S.H.G.) have complained before the District Supply Officer, Chatra about the petitioner for illegal demand of money as a bribe in lieu of issuing the P.D.S. license for the P.D.S. Shops. Whereby, the matter was placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, who constituted a committee headed by the D.D.C., Chatra to enquire about the matter. Secretaries and members of women self help groups appeared before the enquiry committee and explained the matter of taking illegal gratification by the petitioner for issuing license of the P.D.S. Shops. They also submitted the affidavit, sworn by them stating therein that the petitioner taken illegal money to issue license of the P.D.S. Shops. The petitioner was put under suspension by the order of the Joint Secretary, Government of Jharkhand dated 23.11.2010, the affidavit sworn by the Secretaries and members of the S.H.G been annexed as Annexure-A Series to the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the State submitted that though inquiry report not been supplied to the petitioner but no prejudice been shown by the petitioner in that regard, therefore, non-supply of the inquiry report will not ifso facto vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority after considering the inquiry report come to the final conclusion and the impugned order of punishment is just, proper and commensurate with the charges, as have been proved during the course of enquiry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand brought the attention of paragraph-3 to the rejoinder filed to the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the affidavits, which have been annexed as Annexure-A series to the counter-affidavit have been manipulated after obtaining the signatures of those victims only with a view to punish the petitioner.

Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions and upon perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons:-

(i) Admittedly in the instant writ application, after conducting the inquiry, copy of the enquiry report not been supplied to the petitioner which caused prejudice to the petitioner which materially affected the culmination of the proceeding. The supply of the inquiry report is sine qua non for a fair inquiry. The non-supply of the inquiry report prevented the petitioner to put forth his explanation against the findings of enquiry report. On that score, the impugned order of punishment is liable to be quashed.

(ii) From perusal of the impugned order, vide Annexure-9 to the writ application, it appears that the order of punishment is a major punishment i.e. stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effects is fully covered by the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab as reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504. Since the impugned order of punishment is major one, the second show cause notice ought not to have been issued. The same have not been issued resulted in procedural irregularities impugning upon conduction of full dressed departmental proceeding. In that view of the matter, the Impugned order of punishment is also legally not sustainable.

On the cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and as logical sequitur to the aforesaid reason, the impugned order of punishment vide Annexure-9 dated 01.12.2011, being not sustainable in the eyes of law, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent authorities to start a proceeding afresh from the stage of supply of the second show cause notice along with inquiry report by affording reasonable opportunity and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed.