JUDGMENT :

With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

I.A. No.1339 of 2021

2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay in preferring this appeal.

3. However, the office has reported that in view of the order dated 23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020 passed in suo motu Writ Civil No.03 of 2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the appeal is within time, therefore, no order is required to be passed in the present interlocutory application and the same is consigned to the record. However, this order would be subject to any objection raised in future by any aggrieved party. Interlocutory order stands consigned.

L.P.A. No.89 of 2021

4. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.01.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition being W.P.(S) No.466 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the disciplinary authority, as contained in Resolution dated 10.04.2019, by which 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, hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules, 2016, was inflicted upon the writ petitioner, has been quashed and set aside, and the writ petitioner has been held entitled for consequential benefits.

5. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

The writ petitioner has been appointed in the Jharkhand Administrative Service in the year 2010. He was posted as Block Development Officer at Ormanjhi Block in the district of Ranchi. The writ petitioner while working as such, was served with a 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 of commission of alleged irregularities.

The writ petitioner had replied, but the parent department did not find the reply furnished by the writ petitioner to be satisfactory and, as such, decided to initiate departmental proceeding vide Resolution dated 25.09.2017 in exercise of power conferred under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2016.

A memorandum of charge was served. The writ petitioner was directed to reply on the charges levelled against him before the conducting officer. The writ petitioner submitted his reply of defence before the conducting officer on 20.12.2017. The writ petitioner was also allowed to file supplementary reply to the charges.

The enquiry proceeded, in which the writ petitioner had participated. The enquiry officer found the charges not proved and forwarded the report before the disciplinary authority.

The disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice upon which the reply was furnished but the aforesaid reply was not found to be satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and order of punishment was passed on 10.04.2019 inflicting the punishment of withholding of two annual increments.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, preferred writ petition before this Court by invoking jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petitioner took the grounds before the learned Single Judge that even though the charges have not been found to be proved in course of enquiry, the disciplinary authority without differing with the same or showing the reason for difference or providing an opportunity of hearing on the point of difference, issued second show cause notice. The second show cause notice was duly replied but the said reply was found not to be satisfactory and order of punishment was passed.

Therefore, according to the writ petitioner, material irregularity was committed while inflicting the punishment upon the petitioner in t