Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Sita Ram Choudhary S/o Late Preman Choudhary – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 2305 of 2018
Decided On : 12-10-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Manoj Tandon, Neha Bharadwaj, Sneha Kumari, Akanksha Priya.
For the Respondent: Awanish Shekhar.
The Appellate Authority, as a statutory body, must address all issues raised in an appeal and pass a reasoned order, failing which the order may be set aside.
Headnote:
Punishment - Disciplinary Proceedings - Indian Penal Code, Sections 323 and 494 - Appellate Authority's Duty to Address All Issues
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Cooperative Extension Officer, was punished for alleged marriage during subsistence of first marriage and failure to comply with court orders. The petitioner challenged the punishment and the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay and lack of new facts.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the charges of marrying for the second time during subsistence of the first marriage failed due to the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case. The Court also held that the Appellate Authority failed to address the grounds raised by the petitioner and set aside the appellate order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Issues: Validity of punishment, failure of Appellate Authority to address grounds raised by the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The Appellate Authority, being statutory in nature, is duty bound to address all the issues raised in the appeal and pass a reasoned order. Failure to do so renders the appellate order cryptic and necessitates setting it aside.
Final Decision: The appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration, with directions to address all grounds raised by the petitioner and consider the judgment of the Trial Court in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner challenges the order of punishment as contained in Memo No. 3209 dated 29.12.2015, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, by which the petitioner has been punished. Petitioner was reverted to the lowest grade in the pay scale and it was further decided that during the suspension period, he will only be paid the suspension allowance. Further, it was held that this punishment will remain effective till the final decision of the Court. Challenging the same, petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on the ground of delay and also on the ground that no new fact has been brought before the Appellate Authority. This appellate order as contained in Memo No. 02/Nig (Appeal) 52/2017 Sah-80 dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure 20 to the writ petition) is also under challenge.
3. Challenging these two orders, counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge against the petitioner is nonest. He submits that without application of mind, Disciplinary Authority has inflicted punishment upon the petitioner. Further, he submits that the condition imposed to the effect that the punishment order will remain effective till the final decision of the Court is absolutely vague. Nowhere it has been mentioned that this decision will be subject to final order of which Court and in which proceeding. He had preferred an appeal on the aforesaid ground and all the other grounds and in a mechanical manner Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit before the Enquiry Officer as there was an allegation that the petitioner has married for second time during subsistence of first marriage, which itself is an offence for which he was proceeded against and the punishment was imposed.
5. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the entire brief. Petitioner was a Cooperative Extension Officer. There was a matrimonial dispute which led to departmental proceeding. Wife of the petitioner had alleged that the petitioner had married for second time during subsistence of the first marriage. In the Trial Court there was a settlement arrived between the petitioner and his wife, but, the same was not honoured by the petitioner, thus, the petitioner had disobeyed the order of the Court. Another allegation is that the Controlling Officer directed the petitioner to file reply in consideration of the matrimonial complaint made by his wife, but though the wife has appeared before the authority, petitioner failed to appear and did not file the reply. On these grounds, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner. Enquiry report was submitted, which was not conclusive. Thus, fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed. New Enquiry Officer enquired into the allegations and submitted report. Report has been brought on record at page 31. From the record, it is clear that all the charges were not found to be proved. Thereafter another charge-sheet was drawn against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not join his transferred place of posting and he failed to file an affidavit swearing that he had not married for the second time during subsistence of his first marriage. On the basis of the second enquiry, petitioner was inflicted with the aforesaid punishment.
6. From the record, I also find that a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner being Complaint Case No. 217 of 2001 (T.R. No. 941 of 2012) for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint case was instituted at the instance of the wife of the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nawada, vide judgment dated 18.04.2012 acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Sections 323 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. In view of the acquittal, the charge of the departmental proceeding, which relates to allegation of mar
