JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 36 dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent No.3 by the order of the respondent No.4 imposing following punishments upon the petitioner:-

(i) Verification of up-to-date distribution of Red Cards/deposited amount as well as recovery of undistributed Red Cards be done and the collected amount which has not been deposited by the petitioner, be recovered from him with 12% interest and the same be deposited in the treasury.

(ii) Since the charges levelled against the petitioner regarding indiscipline, arbitrariness and negligence in distribution of Red Cards/deposit of collected amount have been proved, his two increments with non-cumulative effect are being withheld.

(iii) Period of unauthorized absence of the petitioner be treated as without salary.

(iv) Nothing will be paid to the petitioner, except subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.

(v) The petitioner’s suspension is being revoked with direction to enter all the remarks in his service-book.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, after being transferred from Block Office, Hazaribagh, was posted as Panchayat Sewak at Chauparan Block since September, 1996, however, his LPC and service-book were not sent due to which his salary remained withheld since September, 1996. He while having charge of Dadpur Village Panchayat, was put under suspension w.e.f. 03.07.1999 and was served a memo of charge in ‘’Prapatra K” issued under the joint signatures of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 alleging that he was handed over 87 Red Cards for distribution, however, the same were not distributed by him till 03.07.1999. It was further alleged that the petitioner was found unauthorizedly absent during the visit of the respondent No.5 at Chouparan Block Office on 03.07.1999 and some persons of the aforesaid Panchayat had also made complaint regarding dereliction of duty on his part. Thereafter, Ram Suchit Sharma, Executive Magistrate, Barhi was appointed as enquiry officer vide memorandum as contained in memo No. 166 dated 08.11.1999 issued by the respondent No.4.

3. The petitioner submitted his reply before the enquiry officer on 18.12.1999 against the charges levelled against him whereafter the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 28.03.2000 to the respondent No.4 stating that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were not found proved and thus departmental proceeding initiated against him might be dropped by revoking his suspension. However, the respondent No.4 did not accept the said enquiry report observing that the same was superficial and that the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner with prejudiced mind.

4. Thereafter, another enquiry officer namely, Kailash Mishra, Executive Magistrate, Hazaribagh was appointed by the order of the respondent No.4 vide memo No. 262 dated 17.08.2000 issued under the signature of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.6 was also assigned the work of the presenting officer vide aforesaid order mentioning that the said authority did not properly perform the entrusted responsibility of the presenting officer in the said departmental proceeding and he was warned to properly perform his duty by presenting all evidences before the enquiry officer. The petitioner as well as the presenting officer were issued notices by the 2nd enquiry officer. The petitioner however stated before the 2nd enquiry officer that his earlier reply might be accepted whereafter he submitted the enquiry report on 29.12.2000 stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved and also observing that the petitioner showed apathy, negligence and dereliction of duty. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 13.02.2001 was passed against the petitioner on the direction of the respondent No.4.

5. It is further submitted that no show cause notice was served to the petitioner