IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Jyotshna Singh W/o Shri Hemant Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 2005 of 2020
Decided On : 09-09-2022
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 226 – Jharkhand Treasury Code – Rule 86 – No illegality – Punishment for withholding Increment – Writ petition has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ orders directions or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing Resolution contained in Memo punishment for withholding three increments with cumulative effect has been imposed petitioner – Held, Court considering present case light judgment – Court finds no error, much less any manifest error of law and procedure leading to any injustice to petitioner settled that judicial review is an evaluation of decision-making process merits of decision itself – Judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion – No allegation of any bias and no case has been made out alleging gross unreasonableness of outcome – Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writs/orders/directions or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the Resolution contained in Memo No. 5/Aarop-1-342-2014-5451(HRMS) Ranchi dated 19.5.2020 (Annexure-13) by which the review application preferred by the petitioner has also been considered and punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority has not been interfered meaning thereby that the review application preferred by the petitioner was rejected. AND
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writs/orders/directions or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to provide all the three increments with consequential benefits after setting aside the impugned order of punishment and entire arrear should be calculated and paid to the petitioner along with interest.
(iv) For any other consequential relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is duly entitled in the eyes of law considering the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Arguments of the Petitioner
3. Petitioner is a member of Jharkhand State Administrative Service and presently working as Director National Employment Programme at Jamshedpur. The allegations in the present case relate to the period 2005-06 when the petitioner was posted at Chandwa Block of the Latehar District. While giving the sequence of events, and referring to the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under:
(b) 31.03.2006 (Annexure-3) - Vide Letter No. 23(I) the petitioner had written to the then Nazir, Chandwa Block, categorically stating that there are errors in the different pages of the cash book and accordingly the then Nazir was directed to rectify the gross negligence on his part by correcting the concerned pages and making the entry properly in detail. The said letter was issued as a show cause asking the Nazir to reply immediately.
(c) 31.03.2006 - Vide letter no. 24(I) dated 31.03.2006, the Petitioner also wrote to the then Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, bringing into his knowledge the clerical mistake in the cash book due to the gross negligence of Nazir and giving details of irregularity committed by the Nazir, and had requested to transfer him. A copy of the said letter was also given to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar.
(d) 22.01.2007 (Annexure-4) - The Petitioner was transferred from B.D.O. Chandwa to B.D.O. Baghmara and accordingly she gave the charge.
(e) Annexure-5 - At the time of handing over the charge, the Petitioner gave the cash book to her successor in which the total balance amount has been shown as 2,92,26,252.03 and the same amount has been shown in the bank account.
(f) 27.07.2007 (Annexure-6) - Audit Team of the Office of the Accountant General conducted audit for Chandwa Block and raised objection in relation to the excess payment/misappropriation of Rs. 5,60,000/- for which the Audit Compliance R
The importance of integrity and honesty in the banking sector, the purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer, and the compliance with the rules of natural justice in disciplinary enquiries.
: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinque....
Removal from Service - Committed irregularities - Procedure for imposing major penalties - Power of judicial review available to High Court as also to this Court under Constitution takes in its strid....
Disciplinary inquiries against bank employees can rely on preponderance of probabilities for evidence; natural justice was not violated despite procedural challenges.
The court upheld the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed, but modified the penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement, considering the nature of the petitioner's role and....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.