JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 362(ii) dated 13.08.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no.3) whereby the petitioner has been inflicted punishment by withholding his two annual increments without cumulative effect and no other benefit to be given to him except subsistence allowance paid during his suspension period for the alleged irregularities committed by him in preparing the voter list of regional constituency of Sukurhutu North Panchayat, Kanke Block, Ranchi with respect to Panchayat Election 2010, which has also been affirmed by the Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) vide order dated 16.09.2014 passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

2. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was the ‘Panchayat Sewak’ of ‘Sukurhutu North Panchayat’ during the relevant period, was involved in preparation/correction of voter list of the said Panchayat on the oral instruction of Block Development Officer, Kanke (the respondent no. 4) as other ‘Panchayat Sewak’ namely Mohan Munda was not able to complete the said work. The petitioner tried to perform the said work with all sincerity, however since only four days were left for the said election, if at all any infirmity was found in the voter list, the same could not have been attributed to him particularly keeping in view that the voter list contained the names of as many as 4,531 voters. In fact, all the infirmities in the voter list as alleged in the memo of charge served to the petitioner were already rectified within the time and the election was conducted without any hinderance.

3. It is further submitted that though the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is minor in nature, yet the same is unwarranted as the charge framed against him was itself not proper due to which the respondent no. 4 had written letter no. 1637(ii) dated 07.02.2011 to the respondent no. 5 (the conducting officer) to exonerate the petitioner from the charges.

4. As against this, Mr. Zaid Imam, learned A.C. to S.C.-VII appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that since the petitioner did not obey the instruction of his superior authorities in preparation of the voter list with respect to the said Panchayat election, he was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Four charges were framed against the petitioner, the first and the main charge was that during the Panchayat Election, 2010, he did not properly perform the work of splitting of the voter list of regional constituency concerning Sukurhutu North Panchayat. Rest of the three charges were related to the said first charge and all those charges were found proved during the inquiry conducted by the respondent no. 5, subsequent to which the disciplinary authority, i.e., the respondent no. 3, passed the impugned order as contained in memo no. 362(ii) dated 13.08.2013 inflicting minor punishment of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner and he was not to get any other benefit except the subsistence allowance paid during the period of suspension.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, despite paucity of time duly cooperated the superior authorities in preparation of voter list after he was involved in the said work on the oral instruction of the respondent no. 4 and therefore, initiation of departmental proceeding was itself unwarranted much less the punishment imposed on him.

7. Discipline and devotion towards work are the fundamental requirements of an administrative system. The controlling/disciplinary authority is well within its power to order initiation of departmental proceeding against an employee in a given situation. In the present case, the petitioner by merely conte