JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the Notification contained in Memo No. 2229 dated 17.5.2017 (Annexure-6), whereby the petitioner has been awarded as many as five punishments, including stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect; not to be posted on higher post on in-charge basis; and not entitled for any payment other than subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 3043 dated 22.8.2019, whereby review petition preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. While the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Chakradharpur, charge-sheet contained in Notification No. 1305 dated 17.3.2016 was issued, whereby eight charges were framed in Prapatra’Ka’. Thereafter by issuance of another Notification No. 2840 dated 27.6.2016, three more charges were added. After due enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report on 14.2.2017, whereby charge Nos. 3, 5, 5(i) and 8 were not proved and rest of the charges were found to be proved. After issuance of second show cause notice and the same replied by the petitioner, punishments were imposed against the petitioner as aforesaid. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred review, but the same was also rejected by order dated 23.2.2018 (Annexure-9). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 1788 of 2018, which was disposed of by setting aside the review order and the matter was remitted back to the respondent-Authority to consider the revision afresh, as the reviewing order was only in one line. Thereafter the Reviewing Authority once again rejected the review petition preferred by the petitioner vide order contained in Memo No. 145 dated 22.8.2019 (Annexure-12).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned penalty order, as also the review order are neither sustainable in law nor on facts, inasmuch as, not a single witness has been examined to prove the charges against the petitioner and mere production of document is not sufficient to prove the charge, and there was no such admission of the petitioner on the documentary evidence relied upon in the charge-sheet. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the impugned penalty is violative of Rule 17(14) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016. Learned counsel further submits that the review order passed by the Secretary of the Department is without jurisdiction, as the Secretary of the Department is not the Appointing Authority of the petitioner, rather, the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is Engineer-in-Chief. Learned counsel further adds that after considering each and every charges levelled against the petitioner, the Engineer-in-Chief, being the Appointing Authority, has come to the conclusion that none of the charges are sustainable in the eyes of law. He also submits that the penalty order as well as the review order passed by the Authorities are cryptic in nature and the same were passed without application of mind, as both the Authorities have not considered the points raised by the petitioner at all. Learned counsel lastly submits that the penalty imposed against the petitioner is too excessive and disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. To buttress his contention, learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the decisions in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and in the case of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88.

5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Department has rightly imposed the penalty upon the petitioner after considering each and every materials during the course of departmental proceeding. Learned counsel submits that on careful appraisal w