JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) “To quash/set aside the office order contained in memo no. 4833 (S) dated 27.06.2014 issued under the signature of respondent no. 3, whereby and whereunder, the punishment of censure and during suspension period expect subsistence allowance nothing would be paid has been passed.

(ii) For a direction commanding upon the respondent to pay the full salary minus subsistence allowance during the period of suspension for more than 15 months.

(iii) During the pendency of this writ petition, the operation of penalty order contained in office order contained in memo no. 4833 (S) dated 27.06.2014 may kindly be stayed.”

3. The appellate order dated 23.02.2015 (Annexure-12) has also been challenged vide I.A No. 2067 of 2015 and amendment has been allowed vide order dated 09.09.2015.

Arguments of the Petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been imposed punishment of ‘censor’ and has been held not entitled for any amount for the period of suspension apart from subsistence allowance.

5. Learned counsel has submitted that the reply filed by the petitioner pursuant to show cause issued to the petitioner has not been properly considered by the Authority while passing the impugned order. He further submits that the impugned order of punishment is non-speaking and therefore the same is fit to be set aside. He has referred to judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh versus State of Bihar reported in 1983 BBCJ 33 and has referred to paragraph 7 thereof to submit that the show cause reply was required to be properly considered and the order passed should reflect active application of mind by the disciplinary authority, but this exercise has not been done in the present case and therefore the order passed by the disciplinary authority is non speaking. He also submits that appellate authority has also not passed any reasoned order which also calls for interference.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that before passing the order regarding non-payment of any amount except subsistence allowance during the period of suspension from 14.03.2013 to 27.06.2014, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner in terms of Rule 97 of Jharkhand Service Code. The learned counsel has relied upon three judgments in support of his submissions. He has also relied upon judgment passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 1081 of 2019 for the purposes of his argument in connection with Rule 97 of Jharkhand Service Code and also judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of court in L.P.A. No. 343 of 2013 decided on 17.06.2014. He has referred to paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgment passed in LPA.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the writ petition wherein a statement has been made that the punishment order was passed by Sri Ram Naresh Raman, who had no power and jurisdiction to pass such an order as he was given the regular promotion as Superintending Engineer only on 03.09.2014.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as per the writ petition, the contractor was already blacklisted prior to the joining of the petitioner and the period of contract was also over.

9. However, during the course of argument, the petitioner has placed the show cause reply filed by the petitioner as well as memorandum of appeal which is on record and there is no such plea that the contractor was already blacklisted prior to the joining of the petitioner, rather the petitioner has taken a specific plea that the contractor was put in blacklist and his registration was cancelled vide letter dated 19.02.2013. It is not in dispute that the entire incident relates to the date 17.02.2013 when the Hon’ble Governor moved on the concerned road and pot holes were found.

Arguments of the Respondents.

10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents