I.A. No. 219 of 2013

This application has been filed under a misconception by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As order dated 17.04.2012 has already been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition, there was no occasion for filing I.A. No. 219 of 2013 seeking permission from the Court to challenge order dated 17.04.2012.

W.P.(S) No. 2863 of 2012

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

3. The petitioner was appointed on 27.08.1984. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide resolution dated 23.05.2009. Subsequently, the enquiry officer was changed and a new enquiry officer was appointed and the departmental proceeding continued by order contained in memo dated 21.12.2011. An enquiry report was submitted on 27.02.2012 finding the charges framed against the petitioner not proved. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.03.2012 and the final order dated 17.04.2012 withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect, was passed.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that as the disciplinary authority decided to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the final order dated 17.04.2012 has been passed. The relevant paragraph of the counter-affidavit is extracted below:

7. “That is most humbly stated and submitted that the answer to the above queries made by the Hon'ble Court is as follows:-

(i) The enquiry officer had exonerated the delinquent officer of all the charges framed against him. However, the disciplinary authority differed from the enquiry officer on charge no. 2 and 3. These two charges related to lifting and distribution of rice under Annapurna Scheme between February, 6 to march, 6 for which hundred percent utilization report was submitted on 21.09.2007 by the delinquent in his capacity as in charge of Hussainabad Anchal. On his own admission, he has accepted that he had merely forwarded the report of the Circle Inspector, Hussainabad without ascertaining its authenticity. This makes the delinquent guilty of lifting of rice and its distribution under Annapurna Scheme for which he had been given clean chit by the enquiry officer.

(ii) As for the 2nd query, it is most humbly stated and submitted that the delinquent had been issued second show cause underlining therein the point of difference as to charge no. 2 and 3 with the enquiry officer. The report of the enquiry officer and all relevant evidences were also enclosed with it and sent to the delinquent affording him opportunity of defense. ”

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 27.02.2012 finding the charges framed against the petitioner not proved however, the second show-cause notice dated 14.03.2012 does not indicate the reasons of disagreement with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and therefore, the final order dated 17.04.2012 is liable to be interfered with on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

6. Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, J.C. to G.P.II, appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that, the second show-cause notice dated 14.03.2012 would indicate that, during the enquiry proceeding sufficient evidences in support of charge nos. 2 and 3 were brought on record and therefore, the disciplinary authority decided to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passed the final order dated 17.04.2012.

7. A perusal of the second show-cause notice indicates that during the departmental proceeding, evidence in support of charge nos. 2 and 3 was brought on record and therefore, the disciplinary authority decided to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The law on the issue is well settled. The disciplinary authority when decides to disagree with the find