Sarju Prasad Singh vs The State of Jharkhand, The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—The petitioner, who was a revenue Karamchari, was proceeded departmentally for the charge that without prior permission of the competent authority, he purchased and sold the lands, which was against the conduct of a Government Servant. After the charges were proved, the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 15/02/1985 inflicted punishment of ''censor'' as well as stoppage of three annual increments. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner, was communicated to the petitioner by Annexure-1 vide memo dated 18/03/1985.

It appears that during the pendency of the appeal one another departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 04/09/1990, in which seven charges were made against him. Out of the seven charges, five charges were the same for which the petitioner have already been proceeded departmentally but rest two charges were new and different. After conclusion of the second departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, on the basis of which the Deputy Commissioner, vide memo No. 1607 dated 29/11/1991, passed the following orders:

(i) Revocation of suspension.

(ii) For the suspension period, he would get only the substance allowance.

Against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner, who modified the order of the Deputy Commissioner to the extent that the petitioner would get his pay, D.A. etc. for the period of suspension.

The petitioner raised grievance before the Deputy Commissioner that for the same charges, he was punished twice. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order contained in Annexure-4 dated 14/08/1996, held that in the first departmental proceeding, the petitioner was punished for five charges, whereas in the second departmental proceeding though there were seven charges against him and, therefore, for those five charges, which were the same as that of the first proceeding and, as such, the petitioner was proceeded for those five charges but in the second departmental proceeding punishment was given to him for the two fresh charges which was not the subject matter of the first enquiry. The punishment inflicted in the second departmental proceeding was modified by the Commissioner in appeal and, therefore, in fact, the petitioner was given punishment only in the first departmental proceeding. Considering those facts the application filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner was rejected as contained in Annexure-4.

The petitioner challenged the said order contained in Annexure-4, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, before the Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal against which the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being CWJC No. 2463 of 1999 (R), which was disposed of by order dated 18/07/2000 by quashing the order of the Commissioner dismissing the appeal and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner to hear the petitioner a fresh and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.

Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner, by his order dated 27/05/2002, contained in Annexure-6, after hearing the parties and on consideration of facts and materials, by a reasoned order dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which is under challenge in this writ application.

From the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh, it appears that the learned Commissioner, pursuant to the order and direction of this Court, examined the matter afresh and on consideration of materials and evidence available on record, concurred with the findings arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, and held that the petitioner''s behaviour was not of a bonafide government servant and his character appeared to be suspicious and he was found to be of doubtful integrity.

After going through the impugned orders, I find that both the authorities concerned on consideration of the materials and evidence on recorded concurrently found that the petitioner was of doubtful integrity and, therefore, awarded punishment of withholding of three increments. In my view, the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.

This Court is not the supervising authority sitting in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the Appellate Court against the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary authority after domestic enquiry and the appellate authority.

Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner that any of the findings arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner is perverse in nature or are not based on materials and evidence available on record. As such, no case is made out for any interference by this Court.

Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ application is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.