The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for proportionate and authorized punishments in accordance with the Civil Services Rules and the Service Code, and the court's discretion in declining to remand a matter based on the prolonged duration of the proceeding and the illegality committed by the disciplinary authority.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 5671 of 2020:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay which has occurred in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the office note dated 06.03.2023, does not intend to press this interlocutory application.

3. In view thereof, the instant interlocutory application is dismissed.

L.P.A. No. 344 of 2020:

4. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 21.05.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1855 of 2018, by which the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has quashed the penalty order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority.

5. The brief facts of the case of the writ petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated reads as under:

The petitioner who was appointed on a Class-IV post in the Dumka Collectorate was put under suspension vide order dated 03.01.2011 and department proceeding was initiated against him by furnishing charge memo in Prapatra-K and explanation was called for.

The writ petitioner, in turn thereof, submitted his explanation on 09.03.2011. The enquiring officer, upon enquiry, found the charges proved and second show-cause notice was issued to him to which he has responded vide his reply dated 12.09.2011 denying all the charges levelled against him.

The departmental authority, vide order No.22/2012 as contained in memo no.120 dated 02.02.2012 awarded punishment to the writ petitioner.

Being aggrieved with the said decision, the writ petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka being Misc. Service Appeal No. 192/12-13 which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 08.11.2017.

6. It is evident from the factual aspect as per the pleading made in the writ petition that the writ-petitioner while posted as a Class-IV employee in the Dumka Collectorate was put under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding for commission of irregularity/misconduct of making direct correspondence to the higher authorities. The memorandum of charge was issued to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner had participated in the enquiry before the enquiry officer, however, charge has been found to be proved and the same having been accepted, the order of punishment has been passed inflicting the following punishment.

(a) forfeiture of 10 annual increments with cumulative effect;

(b) forfeiture of ACP/MACP and promotions, and

(c) denial of full salary and allowance during the period of suspension.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of punishment, had approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1855 of 2018 which has been allowed by quashing the order of penalty against which the instant intra-court appeal has been filed.

7. Mr. Gauraj Raj, learned AC to AAG-II appearing for the appellant-State has submitted by admitting the fact that the order of punishment is not commensurate with the charges levelled as also the second punishment, i.e., forfeiture of promotion and forfeiture of ACP/MACP is not provided under the list of punishment but the same even accepting that the said punishment ought not to have been passed, but the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter before the disciplinary authority for taking decision afresh depending upon the said in proposition to the charges levelled and hence, it is a fit case where the impugned order requires interference since the writ petitioner has been given the benefit on technicality.

8. While, on the other hand, Mr. Kunal Harsh, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order since the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact that withholding 10 annual increments with cumulative effect has been considered to be arbitrary being not in proposition to the charges levelled as also forfeit