Satya Dew Singh vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of an for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction (s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in Memo No 1161/M dated 01.07.2005 (Annexure-8) issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been awarded punishment for stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and has further been warned to improve his behavior in view of Rule 3 (i) (ii) of Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Annexure-8 of the writ petition which is office order bearing Memo No. 1161/M dated 01.07.2005 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, would submit that vide Memo No. 18 dated 03.01.2005 of the Assistant Mining Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur the petitioner was informed that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him due to illegality committed in the government works during his posting.

Thereafter vide Memo No. 77/M dated 18.01.2005 of by the Assistant Mining Officer, East Singhbhum , Prapatra K was issued against the petitioner departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and subsequently, petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and further warning was given to him to improve his behavior in view of Rule 3 (i) (ii) of Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was never accorded any opportunity to cross examine any person in his defence,

It is further submitted that the enquiry report of Shri R.K. Prakash, Incharge, Deputy Director, Geology which was the basis of departmental proceeding conducted against the petitioner was never supplied to the petitioner.

Further, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of several verbal requests, no paper arrangement was made by the Assistant Mining Officer for safety of the file, since he has no control over the office. Ultimately, all papers were torn from the transporting challan register being page Nos. 09.10.2017 & 18 with a sole view to suppress the actual number of Challans issued for the purpose of devoiding the Government of actual royalty and original file was not placed before the officer concerned.

So, the impugned order as contained in Memo No 1161/M dated 01.07.2005 (Annexure-8) is fit to be quashed.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 in which in para 13 it has been stated that the petitioner was served with Prapatra-K vide government memo no. 268/M dated 19.02.2005 which consists of the details of charge levelled against the delinquent employee.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 in which in para 11 it has been stated that as per order dated 27.08.2003, the petitioner was not an incharge for keeping the records and dealing with the files related to Dhalbhumgarh and Potka circles but the petitioner was keeping the files of Arun Dubey and dealing with without giving knowledge to the Assistant Mining Officer.

In terms of order dated 11.09.2019, learned counsel for the respondents produced the records of departmental proceeding of the petitioner in a sealed cover which was opened in the open Court and learned counsel for the parties also inspected the records of departmental proceeding.

Perused the record of departmental proceeding. Order-sheet dated 11.03.2005 reveals that petitioner appeared on 11.03.2005 and filed an application. Xerox copy of charge has been served to him for filing show-cause. Thereafter the proceeding was adjourned for 18.03.2005.

The petitioner was present on 18.03.20015. The Xerox copy of charge submitted by Sri Ratnesh Kumar Sinha, Assistant Mining Officer was handed over to the petitioner and 15 days time was sought by the petitioner for giving reply.

The matter was adjourned for 05.04.2005. The petitioner appeared on 05.04.2005 but no written statement was filed with regard to charge. Only one application was given by the petitioner for cross-examination of some employees and further time was sought for by the petitioner for filing written statement.

The matter was adjourned for 12.04.2005. On 12.04.2005, the petitioner was present and filed written statement in which charge was denied and several documents were sought for by the petitioner, which shows the delaying tactics of the petitioner, thereafter impugned order was passed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and after going through the case record and record of departmental proceeding, which shows the delaying tactics of the petitioner in the departmental proceeding,

I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Let record of departmental proceeding be handed over to Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, A.C to A.A.G-II.