JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 9275 dated 19.09.2013 (Anneuxre-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no. 3) whereby the petitioner has been imposed following punishments :

(i) Censor

(ii) Nothing would be payable to the petitioner except the subsistence allowance for his period of suspension, however the suspension period would be counted for the purpose of his pension.

2. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in memo mo. 1547 dated 18.02.2014 (Anneuxre-12 to the writ petition) passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand (respondent no. 1) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3 has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay him full salary for the period of his suspension i.e., from 17.12.2012 to 17.02.2013 after adjusting subsistence allowance paid during the said period.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Personal Assistant in the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha of erstwhile State of Bihar on 06.08.1998 and after its reorganisation, the petitioner was allocated the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner, while working as Personal Secretary in the Department of Information Technology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, was suspended vide order as contained in memo no. 13820 dated 17.12.2012 issued by the respondent no. 3 under rule-3A of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 on the ground of dereliction of duty and indiscipline. During the said period, he was to be paid subsistence allowance and his headquarter was to be the Department of Science and Technology, Government of Jharkhand. Subsequently, suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide notification as contained in memo no. 1550 dated 18.02.2013 issued by the respondent no. 3 and he was posted in the Department of Labour, Employment & Training, Government of Jharkhand as well as was also served a copy of memo of charge in “Prapatra-K” seeking response on the charges levelled against him.

4. It is further submitted that four charges were framed against the petitioner i.e., (i) not coming to the office on time, (ii) remaining absent from the office, (iii) not giving reply to the show cause letter no. 111 dated 01.10.2012 and (iv) indecent behaviour with the Special Secretary, Department of Information Technology, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner submitted his reply on 28.02.2013 denying all the charges. Moreover, the Personal Secretary to the Principal Secretary had put his note in the file on 21.03.2013 mentioning that the petitioner used to come to the office in time and used to leave the office late in the evening. However, the respondent no. 3 without considering the petitioner’s reply, issued the impugned order dated 19.09.2013 by imposing aforesaid punishments. Being aggrieved with the order dated 19.09.2013, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no. 1, however the said appeal was also dismissed vide order as contained in memo no. 1547 dated 18.02.2014.

5. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s reply was not at all considered by the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order and as such the same is liable to be set aside on the said ground itself. It was alleged in the memo of charge that the petitioner was found absent on 11.11.2012 which was duly replied by the petitioner stating that the said date was Sunday and no order was issued to open the office on the said date. However, the reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered while passing the impugned order dated 19.09.2013.

6. It is further submitted that the sole witness as mentioned in