JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner-State of Jharkhand has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 13.3.2015 / 17.3.2015 (Annexure-10) passed by the Revisional Authority (Member, Board of Revenue) in Revision Petition No. 26 of 2014, whereby the order of dismissal as imposed upon the respondent contained in Memo No. 5826(S) dated 20.6.2013 issued by Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, has been modified and the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service. Prayer has also been made to quash the review order dated 18.1.2019 (Annexure-11) passed by the Revisional Authority in Review Case No. 1/2015.

Factual Matrix

3. The factual expositions as delineated in the writ petition are that the respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer on 16.2.1987 in Public Works Department. Thereafter the service of the respondent was allocated to the Road Construction Department by Notification dated 6.1.1988. While the respondent was posted as Junior Engineer, Soil Investigation Division, Rural Works Department, the competent authority decided to initiate a departmental proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, consolidated under Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935, against the respondent for dereliction of duty and irregularities committed during his posting. Thereafter, memorandum of charges in Prapatra’Ka’ containing as many as eleven charges were framed against the respondent by memo no. 2850 dated 20.4.2012. The respondent was also put under suspension on 13.3.2012. It may be stated that so far as eleven charges are concerned, charge nos. 1 to 8 were related with earlier misconduct of the respondent, which were already proved in earlier departmental proceeding dated 2.4.2008. The Enquiry Officer after enquiring the matter found the rest three charges proved. On being issued second show cause notice on 18.3.2013, the respondent replied on 8.6.2013 stating that since he is in custody, he could not reply earlier and sought some more times to file effective reply to the show cause. Finally by order dated 20.6.2013, the respondent was punished with dismissal from service. The appeal that was preferred on behalf of respondent by his advocate against the dismissal was not entertained by the State-appellant. Thereafter, the respondent preferred W.P.(S) No. 7752 of 2013, which was subsequently withdrawn to pursue his grievance before the Revisional Authority. The respondent preferred revision before the revisional authority i.e. Member, Board of Revenue, challenging the dismissal order. The Revisional Authority after hearing the parties by order dated 13.3.2015/17.3.2015 held that the quantum of punishment appears to be irrational and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service and hence modified the order of dismissal to (i) stoppage of three increments with cumulative effects, (ii) censure, (iii) no promotion shall be granted up to two years, and (iv) the period of suspension & dismissal shall be counted for pensionary benefits only. He shall be paid only subsistence allowance for that period. Though the petitioner preferred review petition before the Revisional Authority, but the same was also rejected by order dated 18.1.2019. Hence, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this writ petition.

Submission of Petitioner-State

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner State of Jharkhand submits that the order passed by the Revisional Authority modifying the order of dismissal is neither sustainable in law nor on facts, inasmuch as, punishment cannot be imposed upon a Government servant by an authority other than the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel adds that in the case at hand, the revisional authority by modifying the dismissal order, punished the respondent-employee as above. Learned counsel submits that the Revisional Authority while modifying the punishment orde