Non-observance of the principle of natural justice due to delayed supply of charge-sheet and relevant documents, and the violation of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1930 led to the quashing of the order of punishment and the direction for reinstatement and a fresh inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

Defect no.5, as has been pointed out by the office pertaining to page nos.168 and 169 of the memo of appeal i.e., the enquiry report, has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit, dated 08.02.2022, as such, the defect no.5 stands removed.

2. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 24.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5994 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment dated 22.09.2015, by which, the writ petitioner has been dismissed from service and an order of recovery of Rs.18,28,557/-, was passed, has been quashed and set aside with a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner in service as also with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of inquiry after granting adequate and sufficient opportunity to the writ petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-

The writ petitioner while working as Forest Range Officer, Koderma, subjected to departmental proceeding by issuance of memo no.881 dated 06.04.2009 under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) 1930.

The departmental proceeding has proceeded which ultimately culminated into the order of punishment, by which, the writ petitioner was dismissed from service as also the direction of recovery of Rs.18,28,557/-, was passed. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by challenging the order of punishment dated 22.09.2015 by taking the plea of non-observance of principle of natural justice since, according to the writ petitioner, the charge-sheet has not been supplied in time as also the relevant documents. The aforesaid fact, however, has been disputed by the respondent State.

The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, has quashed and set aside the order of punishment and the entire enquiry proceeding with liberty to the respondents to proceed, in accordance with law, from the stage of appointing a fresh Inquiry Officer and proceed strictly following the principles of natural justice, if so advised. Further, if the respondents choose to proceed in the proceeding from the stage of appointing a fresh Inquiry Officer, then the entire proceeding must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order and the writ petitioner shall be reinstated in service and on the question of back wages, the respondents shall take a decision in accordance with law and pass necessary order which shall be communicated to the writ petitioner.

4. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G.A.-II appearing for the appellants-State has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there may not be any interference with the administrative decision of the administrative authority so far as it relates to the departmental proceeding.

5. Submission has been made that the learned Single Judge has gone into the wrong direction about non-fulfillment of the principle of natural justice, which led in quashing and setting aside the order of punishment. According to the learned counsel, while doing so, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the nature of charge as also the fact that the writ petitioner has not taken such point before the Inquiry Officer.

6. While on the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that the fact about non-observance of principle of natural justice by not submitting the memorandum of charge at the appropriate time as also the relevant documents, has well been appreciated by the learned Single Judge and only after coming to such conclusion whi