Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Deepak Roshan, J.
Babunand Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No.5994 of 2015
Decided On : 24-02-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311 - Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules - Rule 55 - Reinstatement in service with full back wages - Charge sheet - Instant writ application has been preferred by petitioner praying therein for quashing entire departmental proceeding and order of punishment Annexure whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service and an order recovery has been passed - Petitioner has further prayed for his reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits - Facts giving rise to instant writ application are that while petitioner was posted as Forest Range officer Deputy Secretary of State of Jharkhand issued Memo against this petitioner and it was decided to proceed with departmental proceeding against this petitioner Rule of Civil Services Class fiction Control & Appeal Rules – Held, After going through records case has decided to uphold decision of disciplinary authority and to confirm penalty of removal from service imposed upon appellant - Rule deals with appeals - Provides amongst others that Appellate Authority shall consider whether findings are justified or whether penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders within three months of date of appeal - In order to ascertain whether rule is complied with order of Appellate Authority must show that it took into consideration findings quantum of penalty and other relevant considerations - There is no material for showing that Appellate Authority acted in consonance with its obligation Rule - However in Para counter affidavit it was stated that full inquiry report with annexure can be shown to court at time of hearing if desired - If respondent was anxious to sustain its actionist was obligatory upon it to disclose full inquiry report - Nothing was shown to us nor any attempt to show proceedings of Appellate Authority to disabuse our mind that Appellate Authority was guilty of utter non application of mind and discharged its duty Rule - No attempt was made to urge that three authorities had ever assigned reasons in support of their conclusions - For this additional reason also initial order of disciplinary authority as well as Appellate Authority are liable to be quashed and set aside - In view of aforesaid discussions and judicial pronouncements impugned order of punishment and entire enquiry proceeding is quashed and set aside - However respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law from stage of appointing fresh Inquiry Officer and proceed strictly following principles of natural justice if so advised - It is made clear that if respondents choose to proceed in proceeding from stage of appointing fresh Inquiry Officer then entire proceeding must be completed within period of Six months from date of receipt production of copy order – Order accordingly
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the entire departmental proceeding and the order of punishment dated 22.09.2015 (Annexure-7); whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and an order of recovery of Rs.18,28,557/-has been passed. The petitioner has further prayed for his reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
3. The facts giving rise to the instant writ application are that while the petitioner was posted as Forest Range officer, Koderma, the Deputy Secretary of State of Jharkhand issued Memo No.881 dated 06.04.2009 against this petitioner and it was decided to proceed with a departmental proceeding against this petitioner under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules.
It is the case of petitioner that he received only the copy of Memo dated 06.04.2009 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand and therefore, he immediately informed the department about non supply of charge sheet and the supporting documents. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer handed over the memo of charge to this petitioner; however, no list of documents and/or witnesses was provided to him
The further grievance of the petitioner is that though he repeatedly demanded for the list of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet but he was never provided, inasmuch as, he was forced to write a letter to the government and pursuant to that the Government vide its letter dated 11.03.2011 instructed the Inquiry Officer to supply the documents.
4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceeding has been conducted dehors the principle of natural justice, inasmuch as, the first Inquiry Officer was changed without any notice to this petitioner and the subsequent Inquiry Officer was bias. He further referred one letter which was written by the Inquiry Officer to the concerned D.F.O –cumpresenting officer that if he was not present in his office on a particular date then the petitioner should have camped in your office to procure the documents.
He further submits that the law is now well settled that an Inquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department or disciplinary authority. He contended that in the instant case the Inquiry Officer was full of bias against this petitioner. On the question of biasness, Mr. Sinha referred to the judgment passed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772.
He further submits that the entire departmental proceeding as well as the impugned order of punishment is also bad in law, inasmuch as, admittedly; neither any document has been proved by the Inquiry Officer nor any witness has been examined by the prosecution. The Inquiry Officer simply in two lines proved the charge against this petitioner by holding that on the basis of charge alleged against this petitioner and on the basis of evidence the charge has been proved. Not even in a single line, the Inquiry Officer has given reason for proving the charge. Even otherwise, the proceeding is vitiated on the ground of non-examination of witness as well as non-exhibit of documents.
He further referred to the impugned order and submits that the same is completely non-speaking and non-reasoned order, inasmuch as, the disciplinary authority has not given any reason, whatsoever, in imposing punishment. The order is bad and non-est in the eye of law in the background that even the Inquiry Officer has not given any reason for proving the charge; thus, the disciplinary authority was duty bound to give reasons. In support of this contention, Mr. Sinha relied upon the judgment passed in the case of A.L. Kalra Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
