JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, the learned counsel for 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 of the Resolution dated 25.07.2019 purported to be in exercise of power under Rule 14(i) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 whereby the punishment of censure has been imposed upon the petitioner for the cause of action of the year 2003 and further prayer is to quash the Resolution dated 29.01.2020 whereby the review preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of penalty dated 25.07.2019 has been upheld.

4. The petitioner has been appointed on 01.03.1993 in the cadre of Bihar Administrative Services pursuant to the 37th combined competitive examination conducted the then Bihar Public Service Commission. Pursuant to re-organization of State of Bihar, the petitioner's service was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, Jamua in the district of Giridih with effect from 10.07.2002 to 06.02.2004. While posted as Circle Officer at Jamua on 27.08.2003 there had been a minor accident in which he has sustained minor injuries which did not restrict his movement and after taking advice from the doctor, he continued to discharge the duties as before. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih vide letter dated 09.09.2003 directed the Circle Officer, Giridih, Sadar to assume the charge of the post of Circle Officer, Jamua where the petitioner had been working and the petitioner was further directed to proceed on leave. On 14.09.2003 there had been a camp organized for distribution of land parcha wherein also the petitioner had appeared and played its active role in distribution of the land parcha. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih had recommended for suspension of the petitioner and also framed charge against him in prapatra-ka by letter dated 11.10.2003. The charge was that the petitioner was having a fracture of his leg and on account of the same had been absenting from duty without leave and had been operating and discharging his duties from his residence. The said charge was not proved by the disciplinary authority. For the cause of action of the year 2003 now by way of impugned order the punishment order has been issued against the petitioner whereby punishment of censure has been imposed upon the petitioner. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that for the cause of action of the year 2003, the impugned order has been passed on 25.07.2019. He submits that this is stale and in view of settled proposition of law the same cannot sustain in the eye of law. He draws the attention of the Court to Annexure-4 which is a Government letter whereby Deputy Commissioner, Giridih was requested to provide evidence forming the basis of such charge. He further refers to the letter of the Government dated 24.06.2013 and submits that in that letter about nine reference letters have been referred to whereby it was requested to send the evidence for proceeding on such charge but the same was not provided. He further refers to letters of the Government dated 10.02.2014 and 15.02.2017 and submits that again the request was made to the concerned authority for providing the evidence. He further submits that in the letter dated 15.02.2017 about 12 references of request have been reflected and inspite of that nothing was provided and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. He submits that the impugned order is also a non-speaking ord