JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel for the respondents through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the Notification No.2850 dated 13.11.2013 issued under the signature of Special Secretary to the Government, Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the punishment of censure has been imposed upon the petitioner and a decision has been taken with respect to payment of salary for the period of suspension to the effect that the same will be decided after disposal of the criminal case pending against the petitioner.

The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the entire arrears of difference of salary for the suspended period.

3. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge against this petitioner was in two parts. Firstly; negligence in construction of pier of the bridge and secondly; lack of due supervision during construction of the bridge.

4. Learned counsel submits that from the enquiry report it is clear that the petitioner was not posted at the time of construction of pier of the bridge, however, looking to the concluding part of the enquiry report it transpires that since the petitioner had paid major portion of amount to the contractor; as such in the eye of Inquiry Officer the charge has been proved.

He contended that admittedly; the petitioner was not posted at the time of construction of pier of the bridge and he was posted on site almost after a year which is also been mentioned in the enquiry report, however, since the major payment was made by this petitioner to the contractor, the charges has been shown to be proved. He further contended that by going through the conclusion it can be said that the Inquiry Officer has gone beyond the charge, inasmuch as, there was no charge with respect to payment of any amount rather it was only for bad construction of the pier of the bridge and lack of supervision and since the petitioner was not at all posted during construction of the pier of the bridge; as such the enquiry report itself is bad in law and consequently the impugned order which has been passed on the basis of enquiry report is also non-est in the eye of law.

5. He further referred to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Anr. vs. Amresh Narayan Sinha (Civil Appeal No.5737 of 2019) arising out of SLP (C) No.16928 of 2018 and submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt Rule 97 of Jharkhand Service Code that after conclusion of the departmental enquiry the competent authority will have to decide in terms of Rule 97. He further submits that Rule 97 (2) deals with the circumstances when the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance of the suspension period and according to that either the Government servant is exonerated from the charges or the suspension was totally unjustified.

Referring to the aforesaid provisions of law he submits that the suspension of the petitioner was done in view of the same charge as stated hereinabove and by going through the enquiry report it would transpire that in the eye of Inquiry Officer since the petitioner has paid major amount, as such, he has been held guilty and the charge has been proved whereas, the payment part was not within the charge; as such, the Inquiry Officer has gone beyond the charge which is impermissible in the eye of law.

He further referred to a judgment passed by this Court in the case of one Ram Pukar Ram, wherein this Court has quashed the order of punishment on the ground that it was beyond the charge. Further, the case of another co-charged employee-Ashok Kumar was also decided in his favour and necessary order was passed for payment of consequential benefits.

6. Relying upon the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquir