Ram Prasad Sahu vs State Of Jharkhand

The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 19.07.2014 by which he has been awarded punishment of stoppage of increment for 6 months equivalent

to one black mark and order dated 17.07.2015 by which his appeal has been rejected. Â

The petitioner who was appointed as Constable on 25.12.1981 while posted as A.S.I in Ormanjhi Police Station was placed under suspension vide

order dated 30.04.2013 on an allegation that on 15.04.2013 he did not register the case nor issued requisition for injury report when the informant and

other injured persons had come to the police station and informed him about the occurrence. In the departmental proceeding initiated against him in

which charge-memo dated 15.05.2013 was served upon him on the aforesaid allegations, the enquiring officer in its report dated 16.06.2014 has

recorded a finding that the charge framed against the petitioner is not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreeing with the enquiry report has

inflicted punishment of stoppage of one increment for 6 months by order dated 19.07.2014. Â

Mr. Sidhartha Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the disciplinary

authority while disagreeing with the enquiry report has passed penalty order dated 19.07.2014 which, thus, has been passed in breach of the principles

of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on decision in “Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Kunj Behari Misraâ€

reported in (1998) 7 SCCÂ 84 .Â

Mr. Anuj Burman, the learned State counsel, however, supporting the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner submits that the enquiry against the

petitioner was conducted in observance of the rules of natural justice and, therefore, no interference is required in this matter. Another contention

raised by the learned State counsel is that findings recorded by the departmental authorities are not open to challenge in a writ proceeding and on that

ground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.Â

When a certiorari can be issued by a writ Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been explained by the

Supreme Court in “Syed Yakoob Vs. K. S. Radhakrishnan†reported in AIR 1964 SC 477. By now it is well established that if punishment has

been imposed upon an employee in a departmental proceeding which was conducted without observing the rules of natural justice, a certiorari shall

lie. The enquiring officer in its report dated 16.06.2014 has found the charges framed against the petitioner not proved. In “Managing Director,

ECIL, Hyderabad and Others. Vs. B. Karunakar and Others†reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727, it has been held that when the enquiring officer has

found the charges against a charged officer not proved the delinquent must be supplied a copy of the enquiry report and afforded an opportunity to

defend before the disciplinary authority takes a final decision in the matter. In a case where the disciplinary authority has formed an opinion to

disagree with the findings recorded in the enquiry report, the law requires him to record his tentative findings on disagreement and supply a copy of

“the note of disagreement†to the delinquent who can submit his response on “the note of disagreementâ€. Wherever this procedure is not

followed, the order of punishment is rendered illegal on the ground of breach of natural justice [refer “Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Kunj

Behari Misraâ€​ reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84].Â

On admitted facts, the department did not bring any evidence on record that the injured persons had visited police station on 15.04.2013 rather, it

remains a matter of record that a complaint was lodged only on 18.04.2013 on the basis of which Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 36 of 2013 has been

registered. The disciplinary authority without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, while disagreeing with the enquiry report dated

16.06.2014, has inflicted punishment of stoppage of one annual increment for 6 months equivalent to one black mark. Apparently, the order of

punishment dated 19.07.2014 is illegal. The appellate authority has also ignored this aspect of the matter. Â

In the aforesaid facts and for the reasons indicated hereinabove the impugned orders dated 19.07.2014 and 17.07.2015 are quashed.Â

The writ petition is allowed.   Â