JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order of punishment of Censure issued vide Memo No. 287, dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure-7) as also the appellate order issued vide Memo No. 8017, dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure-8) and further to direct the respondents to pay admissible consequential benefits to the petitioner such as promotion etc.

3. The case of the petitioner is that when he was posted as District Transport Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa for the periods from 07.01.2011 to 04.09.2013, upon a complaint lodged by a local resident namely Marsal Mundu, the Lokayukt sought report from the concerned Deputy Commissioner and thereafter from the Transport Department regarding the alleged loss of revenue to the State Government due to non-payment of Transport Tax by the officers of SAIL of Meghahatu Buru Iron Ore Mines, District – West Singhbhum. A letter was also sent to the Divisional Commissioner to enquire into the matter and submit the report. Upon submission of report by the Divisional Commissioner, show-cause was issued to the petitioner, who, in turn, filed reply which was found to be satisfactory. However, a departmental enquiry was initiated under Rule 55 of CCA Rules and petitioner received Memo No. 6308, dated 15.07.2015 alongwith Prapatra-Ka and the same was forwarded by illegally appointed enquiry officer vide letter no. 158/2015, dated 21.07.2015. Petitioner submitted his reply before the enquiry officer on 30.07.2015 and the enquiry officer called for the report from the Deputy Commissioner. The matter was heard on 08.09.2015 and the enquiry report was submitted on 08.10.2015 along with letter no. 496, dated 07.09.2015 of the then District Transport Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. Thereafter, the order of punishment was issued vide Memo No. 287, dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure-7). Petitioner preferred appeal against the order of punishment of “Censure” which has been affirmed vide Memo No. 8017, dated 16.09.2016. During pendency of departmental proceeding, name of the petitioner was considered by the DPC but decision was kept in sealed cover. Petitioner moved from pillar to post for withdrawal of punishment of “Censure” which is not based upon cogent evidence but finally the respondent no. 2 refused to reconsider the matter and as such, he has been constraint to knock door of this Court.

4. Mr. K.M. Verma, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Shadab Bin Haque and Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, submits that this is a glaring example where petitioner has been made escape goat and is unnecessarily being harassed at the hands of the respondents. Even after the show-cause reply was found to be satisfactory, illegally a retired officer was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter, which is contrary to the provisions of Departmental Enquiries Act, 1972. Learned counsel submits that no regular departmental enquiry was ever conducted except asking of show-cause. Even no witnesses were examined nor any of the documents were ever exhibited. Merely on assumption, the straight forward enquiry report was submitted. Learned counsel further submits that even the notings of the file brought on record and produced in paragraph-15 and 16 of the writ petition, which has been obtained under Right to Information Act, clearly shows malafide action on part of the respondents. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has worked as District Transport Officer for the periods 07.01.2011 to 04.09.2013 but he has been made escape goat and none of the officers have been prosecuted except him for not implementing the provisions of tax on the vehicle in question for the periods 28.09.2000 to 06.01.2011. It is a fact that none of the authorities ever took care in the matter right from the bifurcation of the State till the year 2010 and it is the petitioner who for the first time noticed the matter and issued letter dated 25.04.2011 to the Manager, SAIL, Kiriburu/Meghahatuburu