Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. N. Pathak, J.
Santosh Kumar Garg - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 5890 of 2022
Decided On : 23-11-2023
Punishment - Departmental Proceeding - Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2016 - Rule 14(iv), Rule 18(2), Rule 19
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order of punishment for withholding two increments without cumulative effect, based on disagreement with the findings of the inquiry report. The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were not tenable in the eyes of the law, as the disciplinary authority did not provide reasons for disagreement, violated principles of natural justice, and contravened statutory rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was not tenable in the eyes of the law due to several reasons: the petitioner was exonerated by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority did not provide reasons for disagreement, and the order was in complete violation of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2016. As a result, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, failure to provide reasons for disagreement, non-compliance with statutory rules
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a written representation before passing a final order imposing punishment. The court also emphasized the importance of following the procedure for imposing minor penalties as specified in Rule 19 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2016.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order of punishment as contained in Memo NO. 5/AAROP-1-32/2015-5660 (HRMS), Dated 05.06.2020 [Annexure-11], whereby the disciplinary authority, by differing with the findings of the inquiry report, has inflicted punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 5/AAROP – 1-32/2015-2390 (HRMS)/Ranchi, Dated 12.03.2021 [Annexure-12], passed by the appellate authority confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
3. According to the petitioner, after his appointment, he was posted and working to as a Block Development Officer, Pakuria, District Pakur and he discharged his duties as a diligent public servant without any complaint. In the year 2010, a complaint was lodged by one Suresh Tudu before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, alleging therein illegality and corruption by the officials with regard to carrying out works under Scheme No. 43/09-10 and 44/2009-10 for construction of road in Salgapara being implemented in the district of Pakur. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur vide his letter no. 75/Go. Dated 06.08.2010, directed the Sub-divisional Officer, Pakur to investigate the matter. After inquiry, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur, furnished its report before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur vide letter no. 314/Go. Dated 23.08.2010 wherein several irregularities pertaining to implementation/ execution of works under the concerned scheme were found but no evidence at all was found regarding taking of bribes/commission in executing works at the concerned site. On the basis of report of the Sub-Divisional officer, Pakur, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Pakur issued directions to suspend Md. Zakir Hussain, Panchayat Sewak, Pakuria and to start departmental proceeding against him vide order as contained in Memo No.l 925/Go. Dated 27.08.2010. Thereafter, vide Memo No. 1269/Ji.P., dated 30.12.2010, said Panchayat Sewak was transferred and posted to Block Office, Amrapara after revocation of his suspension. After conclusion of departmental proceeding against the said Panchayat Sewak, order of punishment as contained in Memo NO. 326/P. Dated 20.07.2012 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Pakur whereby his salary for the periods 27.08.2010 – 30.12.2010 was withheld along with withholding of three increments. The advance amount of Rs.57,500/- pertaining to both the schemes i.e. Scheme No. 43/2009-10 for construction of road in Salgapara, Pakur had been recovered from the said Panchayat Sewak and deposited in treasury vide order as contained in Letter no. 484/P., dated 25.09.2010 and works under both the Schemes were closed.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that after five years, a recommendation to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner was received from the office of the Commissioner, MNREGA vide Letter No. 4-20135/AAROP (Pakur)/2010/ Gr. Vi-(N) 683 (Anu) dated 10.04.2015 (Annexure-6). Consequently, a show-cause notice along with memo of charges was issued to him vide Letter No. 5/Aarop-1-32/2-15 Ka. 6329 (Anu), Dated 16.07.2015 (Annexure-7) from the office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand which was duly replied by the petitioner vide his letter no. 90/Go. Dated 27.08.2016 (Annexure-8). After recommendations from the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, the departmental proceeding under Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2016 was instituted/initiated against the petitioner vide Notification no. 977, Dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure-9). Thereafter, vide his letter dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure-10), petitioner also filed supplementary show-cause reply against the memo of charges. Thereafter, enquiry report was prepared and submitted by the
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
The principles of natural justice require that a disciplinary authority must provide reasons for differing from an inquiry officer's findings and allow the employee an opportunity to respond before i....
In disciplinary proceedings, the authority imposing penalties must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing reasons for differing from an inquiry officer's findings and allowing the employe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, including giving the delinquent officer an opportunity t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically providing the charged officer with an opportunity to rebut the findings of the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
