Satya Prakash vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Afaque Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned G.A. I for the respondents.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing resolution dated 05.07.2011, whereby, by way of punishment, stoppage of two pay

increments with non-cumulative effect and stoppage of promotion of the petitioner for next two years from the due date of promotion has been

imposed; and further prayer has been made for quashing order dated 28.04.2012 whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

It is the case of the petitioner that on 05.10.2000, the petitioner joined as probationer Deputy Collector at Patna Secretariat in Personnel,

Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. After bifurcation, the petitioner joined in State of Jharkhand on

20.11.2000 on the same post. After getting successful training, he was posted as Block Development Officer, Manjhgaon, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa

on 22.06.2002 where he continued till 04.01.2005. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa vide letter dated 06.05.2002 addressed to all

Block Development Officer including the Block Development Officer, Manjhgaon gave a direction for repairing of hand-pumps and construction of

well at priority level after making inspection. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said letter dated 06.05.2002 was prior the date of joining of

the petitioner as Block Development Officer, Manjhgaon and the petitioner at no point of time was informed by his predecessor regarding that letter.

Even otherwise, that work was to be executed through panchayat level.

A complaint dated 09.10.2002 was made by a political party before Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa regarding the scam of huge

amount in the name of repairing of the hand-pumps. However, on plain reading of said complaint, it is evident that the name of Manjhgaon Block has

not been mentioned. On the basis of said complaint, the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa vide letter dated 11.10.2002 directed the

Deputy Development Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer, Chaibasa and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chakradharpur to make verification of the facts

and submit report in this regard. In that letter also, the name of Manjhgaon Block is also not mentioned.

A 'Public Interest Litigation' being W.P. (PIL) No. 1422 of 2003 was also filed before this Court for the same cause wherein also complaint dated

09.10.2002 made by political party was mentioned. Consequent thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbum, Chaibasa vide letter dated 15.

01.2004 directed the petitioner along with other B.D.Os to submit up-to-date report with the regard to subject matter of Public Interest Litigation,

which the petitioner replied annexing with detailed report vide letter dated 21.01.2004. But, in the meantime, the Deputy Development Commissioner

has written a letter to Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand to take action against the petitioner without issuing any

show cause. However, on the basis of said letter of Deputy Development Commissioner, explanation was sought for from the petitioner vide letter

dated 05.03.2004, to which the petitioner replied vide letter dated 15.03.2004. But, without considering his explanation memo of charge was framed

against the petitioner vide letter dated 10.02.2004 and departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, the

petitioner participated and submitted his defence but the authority did not consider the same and submitted the enquiry report before the disciplinary

authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was never served with the enquiry report, which caused serious

prejudice to the petitioner as he could not give proper reply resulting into imposition of impugned order of punishment. It is further case of the

petitioner that before imposing the impugned punishment, the petitioner was not asked for second show cause as such there is breech of principles of

natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the defence taken by the petitioner has neither been taken into consideration

by the disciplinary authority nor it has been taken by appellate authority.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 59 of the Civil Services (C.C. & A) Rules, which is quoted herein

below:

“59.In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any penalty specified in rule 49, the appellate authority shall consider â€

(a)whether the facts on which the order based have been established;

(b)whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and

(c)whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate; and after such consideration shall pass such order as it thinks proper.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment order has been passed without considering the defence of the petitioner and it has

been passed one sided.

On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned G.A. I appearing for the respondents submits that on the complaint, enquiry was made, in which, the

enquiry officer found the charges to be proved. Hence, the disciplinary authority considering the gravity of charge, imposed the impugned punishment

which has been affirmed by the appellate authority, which needs no interference by this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of documents available on record, it appears that the enquiry report was not served

upon the petitioner before imposing impugned punishment, which caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and for that he is not able to reply suitably.

Furthermore, provisions of 59 of the Civil Services (C.C. & A) Rules has not been complied with. The appellate authority also did not take into

consideration of these facts.

For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of punishment, the impugned order of punishment dated 5. 07.2011 as also appellate order dated

28.04.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside.

However, it is open to the respondents to proceed for a de novo enquiry, if so legally advised, but after following the principles of natural justice

and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.