The judicial review of the quantum of punishment is limited, and the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary or appellate authority for a fresh decision on the penalty.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 29.07.2011, whereby major penalty of removal from service has been inflicted upon him. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 12.12.2011, communicated to him vide letter dated 20.04.2012, as contained in Memo No. 289(ii), dated 14.05.2012, whereby his appeal has been dismissed. Petitioner has further prayed for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

3. Case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Panchayat Sewak, Dumri Block, Jharkhand. He was suspended on the allegation that he wrongly identified one beneficiary namely Ahlad Bek, son of Late Lukas Oraon and infact the amount was given to one person named Bablu. It has further been alleged that the Cheque amount of Rs.20,000/- was to be paid from Gumla-Simdega Central Cooperative Bank but it has wrongly been handed over to one person named Bablu, though the Cheque contained the name of beneficiary. On the said allegation, petitioner was suspended vide letter no. 2488 (ii)/G, Gra, dated 03.11.2008 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Petitioner filed his show-cause before the authorities, however the charges were proved against him. Thereafter, second show-cause notice was issued to him, which was duly replied by him and ultimately, vide order dated 29.07.2011, he was dismissed from the service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also stood dismissed on 12.12.2011 by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Rachi. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court.

4. Ms. Priyanka Bobby, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the genesis of the departmental proceeding is bad and is demolished. The relevant persons were not properly examined which has prejudiced case of the petitioner. The documents from the Bank were also not produced or handed over to the petitioner. Learned counsel further admits that though petitioner had put his signature on the cheque, but it was done under coercion. Learned counsel further submits that the dismissal order is very harsh punishment since petitioner is a Class-IV employee and as such his case would have been considered sympathetically and lesser punishment could have been awarded to him. Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances, the impugned order may be quashed and the matter may be remitted back with a direction to consider his case sympathetically.

5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

6. Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel representing State submits that petitioner has himself admitted that the misconduct was committed by him and as such he cannot be left scot free. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted and petitioner was held to be guilty of charges and thereafter order of removal has been passed by the disciplinary authority. There is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order.

7. Be that as it may, having heard rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that the matter may be remitted back to the respondents authorities for re-consideration on the point of quantum of punishment. Admittedly petitioner is a Class-IV employee and he has admitted his guilt. Further, the district of Gumla is not a notified area and it cannot be denied that petitioner under coercion has committed the guilt. There is no cogent evidence to show that petitioner is directly responsible for the omission or commission and as such, the capital punishment is too harsh. All these things have to be properly considered by the concerned authorities and thereafter give their finding and pass order sympathetically. The order of dismissal, on the face of it, appears to be too harsh.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others Vs. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 has been pleased to hold that the judicial re