The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in the decision taken by the disciplinary authority and referred to guidelines from previous judgments to determine the conditions under which interference can be made to the order of disciplinary authority.

ORDER :

The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 20.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.7713 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the order inflicting punishment dated 30.11.2017 issued by the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi by which the writ petitioner has been punished with the punishment of compulsory retirement, has been refused to be interfered with while dismissing the writ petition.

2. 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 was employed as an Assistant Electrician in the Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur. While in service, the wife of the writ petitioner had applied for allotment of residential plot through lottery in the year 1997 and after being declared successful, a plot was allotted in favour of the wife of the writ petitioner. As writ petitioner was not having any residential house, the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur vide Memo No.3658 dated 06.12.1996 allotted House No.22/2-1 in favour of the writ petitioner on temporary basis on rent. On 08.06.2001, he made an application for making permanent allotment of the said house in his favour and for entering into Hire Purchase Agreement and consequently recommendation in this regard was made in favour of the petitioner. After considering the entire facts, the Superintending Engineer vide Memo No.60 dated 14.06.2001 directed the Executive Engineer to execute an agreement in favour of the writ petitioner.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that in spite of such direction the Executive Engineer was not making allotment of Flat, therefore, the writ petitioner moved this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1875 of 2008 seeking a direction upon the Jharkhand State Housing Board to execute a Hire Purchase Agreement in favour of the writ petitioner with respect to Flat No.22/2-1 situated at Bagbera Housing Colony.

This Court vide order dated 27.01.2016, dismissed the aforesaid writ petition. Thereafter, the writ petitioner preferred appeal being L.P.A. No.224 of 2016. However, after some argument the writ petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said appeal and the appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.06.2016.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur vide letter No.2008 dated 19.05.2016 directed the Executive Engineer for getting the aforesaid flat vacated by exercising its power under Section 83 and 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982, but later on, the Executive Engineer vide letter No.791 dated 20.05.2016 ordered for removing the seal and hand over the possession of the flat back to the writ petitioner as they had not obtained permission from competent court in the matter.

It is the case that in view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the writ petitioner voluntarily vacated the premises on 14.06.2016 itself and handed over the vacant possession of the quarter to the respondent authorities and informed the said fact to the concerned Executive Engineer, Jamshedpur vide letter dated 15.06.2016.

It is the further case of the writ petitioner that ignoring the said fact about voluntary vacation of the said flat, the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board put the writ petitioner under suspension vide Memo No.779 dated 28.07.2016. The writ petitioner was served a memorandum of charge vide letter No.612 dated 13.06.2016. The show cause was submitted by the petitioner but the same was not found to be satisfactory and accordingly the Housing Board proceeded to conduct an enquiry against the writ petitioner.

The writ petitioner had participated in the enquiry but charge was found to be proved and thereafter a second show cause notice