SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Jhk) 444

Jharkhand High Court
N.N.Tiwari, J.
Dr.Kashi Nath Ram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
WP(S) No. 3802 Of 2006
Decided On : 18 May, 2007

Headnote:Service Law – Dismissal – inordinate delay in issuing memo of charge – non – supply of relevant documents unexplained – no opportunity given to appellant to test the veracity of evidence used – action of respondents discriminatory and arbitrary – petition allowed. (Para 9)

ORDER

N.N. Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Letter No. 1160 dated 5.6.2006 issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby the decision has been taken to dismiss the petitioner from service and to recover certain amounts from him. The petitioner has further sought for revocation of his suspension and also for payment of salary and other allowances.

2. The short facts of the petitioners case are that the petitioner was appointed on Class-II post in Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department in the year 1972. In the year 1981 he was promoted to Class-I post. The petitioner was transferred and posted at several places between the years 1972 and 1996 without any blemish and adverse remark. In the year 1997, while he was working as the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Saran Division, the petitioner was put under suspension by the department by letter dated 1.2.1997. Thereafter, the memorandum of charges was also served on him initiating the departmental proceeding against him. The petitioner challenged the same in a writ petition being CWJC No. 2316/97 filed in the Patna High Court. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry by 31.12.1997, failing which it was directed that the charge-sheet as well as the suspension order shall stand quashed w.e.J. 1.1.1998. The enquiry could not be concluded by 31.12.1997 and the department then filed a petition for extension of time for concluding the enquiry, but the same was rejected. The petitioner, thus, resumed his work w.e.f. 1.1.1998 as the Regional Director of the said department. In the year 1999 the petitioner was transferred and posted as Regional Director, North Chotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh. Which he was working as the Regional Director, North Chotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh, some dispute arose between him and the Deputy Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh. The sad dispute was brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand as also the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Government of India. Out of the said dispute and mala fide, the Divisional Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh alleged as many as 27 more charges against the petitioner by his letter No. 236 dated 13.8.2001 (Annexure-5) including the charge-sheet which already stood quashed by virtue of the order of the Patna High Court dated 5.8.1997 (Annexure-4). The subsequent charge-sheet was issued on 1.1.1998 in which the charges which already stood quashed were also incorporated among the 27 charges. The said memo of charges containing 27 numbers of charges was inquired into by a Joint Secretary, who after enquiry found all the charges false, fabricated and baseless (Annexure6). The Secretary forwarded the said charges to the Cabinet Vigilance by Letter No. 1349 dated 24.8.2001 for further enquiry. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(S) No. 4111/01 in this Court. The said writ petition is still pending in this Court. However, Secretary of the department by Letter No. 1158 dated 7.5.2004 suddenly asked of an explanation on some other charges which the petitioner replied by Memo No. 732 dated 9.8.2004 denying the said charges. The secretary by Memo No. 380 dated 25.2.2005 again put the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. A charge-sheet was then followed by Memo No. 534 dated 17.3.2005 containing as many as 19 charges against the petitioner regarding unauthorised absence, indicipline and illegal appointment made by him. An enquiry officer and presenting officer were also appointed and the petitioner was asked to file his defence. The petitioner challenged the same in a writ petition being WP(S) No. 1310/05, but the some was dismissed by order dated 21.3.2005 directing he respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding as soon as possible. An appeal being LPA No. 347/05 was also filed against the said or








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top