JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Gaurav Piyush, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

3. In the present writ petition, following prayers have been made:-

“For quashing the memo no.144 dated 31.01.2011 issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder he has been served a fresh Inquiry Report and asked to submit his show cause on the said Inquiry Report within a period of one week;

And

For quashing the Inquiry Report signed on 31.12.2010 by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur wherein the petitioner has been held to have been found guilty of the charges levelled against him as the said Inquiry Report has been prepared by the present Deputy Commissioner, Pakur without having any authority to submit Inquiry report. More so as for the self-same charges previously an Inquiry report was submitted by the duly constituted Inquiry Officer as back as on 19.1.2010.”

Another prayer has been made to quash the order of punishment vide Notification No.586 dated 31.03.2011. The order of punishment having been passed during the pendency of this writ petition, the same was challenged by the petitioner in I.A. No.1592 of 2011 which was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2021 and was directed to form a part of the main writ application. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is that of deduction of five increments in the pay scale and further directed that for the period the petitioner was under suspension, the petitioner will not be entitled to any payment except subsistence allowance.

Argument of the Petitioner

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd inquiry report has been prepared without authority of law as there was already an inquiry report which was duly submitted by the earlier Inquiry Officer as back as on 19.01.2010. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the 2nd show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and consequently, the order of punishment was imposed upon the petitioner, in spite of the fact that the matter was pending before this Court. The punishment order is also under challenge.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his argument has submitted that a criminal case was instituted being Pakur P.S. Case No.124 of 2008 dated 14.06.2008 and a charge sheet was submitted inter alia against the petitioner for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 120B of Indian Penal Code and Rule 40 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 14.09.2009 and thereafter, inquiry proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Memo No.1510 / M dated 03.11.2009 wherein, Mr. Manish Ranjan, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner, Pakur was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and Sri Chintamani Mahto, Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur was appointed as the Presenting Officer. It was alleged that the petitioner while working as Assistant Mining Officer at Pakur was involved in selling transport challan, issuing transport challan even in connection with closed mines and for which the aforesaid criminal case was also instituted.

6. The learned counsel further submits that the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report in the form of a letter bearing number 171 dated 21.04.2010 and exonerated the present petitioner. However, when the inquiry report was placed before the disciplinary authority, a direction contained in order dated 26.06.2010 was issued by the disciplinary authority for review of the inquiry itself, to examine the investigating officer of the criminal case with a direction that the Inquiry Officer should himself examine the records.

7. The learned counsel submits that the order dated 26.06.2010 asking for review of the inquiry report does not indicate any reason for differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer and no such order could have been passed. Learned counsel also submits that no show cause was issued to the petitio