JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anshuman Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the resolution dated 10.04.2019 contained in Annexure-6 whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment of withholding of two increments of pay with cumulative effect under rule 14(vi) of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016. The prayer for consequential benefits is also made in the writ petition.

4. The petitioner has been appointed in Jharkhand Administrative Service in the year 2010. The petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer (BDO) at Ormanjhi Block in the District of Ranchi. The petitioner received the show cause from the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand dated 13.10.2016 whereby he was directed to reply on the charges. The petitioner replied to the said charges. Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand vide resolution dated 25.09.2017 decided to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 17 of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016. The petitioner was directed to reply on the charges levelled against him before the conducting officer. The petitioner submitted his reply of defence before the conducting officer on 20.12.2017. The petitioner was also allowed to file supplementary reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter the departmental proceeding proceeded and the enquiry report has been submitted. The second show cause was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the concerned show cause and thereafter the punishment order dated 10.04.2019 has been issued. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has moved before this Court.

5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that in the enquiry proceeding the enquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner from all those 14 charges. He submits that inspite of that, the disciplinary authority without providing opportunity of hearing and recording the reasons on differing with the enquiry report has passed the impugned order. He submits that it is against the well settled principles of law. To buttress this argument, he relied in the case of ‘Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra’ reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84. Paragraph no.19 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

“19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.”

6. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further considered the case of ‘Kunj Bihari Mishra’ (supra