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 to represent before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

I.A No. 915 of 2023

This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 254 days in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also after going through the cause shown in this interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay, I.A No. 915 of 2023 is hereby allowed and delay in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

L.P.A No. 38 of 2023

3. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State of Jharkhand to challenge the writ Court’s order dated 18th April 2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6687 of 2016 by which the punishment order has been quashed.

4. The writ petitioner who is the respondent before us was proceeded in a departmental proceeding in connection to charge memo dated 25th January 2012 in Prapatra-K which was issued on the basis of various imputations of misconduct against him.

5. The Inquiring Officer submitted a report dated 18th May 2016 observing that none of the charges is supported by evidence. Similar observations have been made against all the charges framed against the respondent. For the sake of convenience, we would extract the findings of the Inquiring Officer recorded in relation to charge no.5, which read as under:

^^vkjksih inkf/kdkjh dk cpko&cku Lor% Li"V gS] tks Lohdkj ;ksX; gSA

;gk¡ ;g xkSjryc gS fd izklafxd ;kstuk,¡ 2006&07 esa Lohd`r gqbZA Li"V gS fd ;kstukvksa dk dk;kZjEHk o"kZ 2006&07 esa gh gqvk gksxkA vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh dk jktuxj iz[kaM esa dk;Zdky 31-12-2007 rd FkkA ;kstukvksa dk LFky tkap fnukad 30-07-08 dks fd;k x;kA bl vUrjky esa ;kstuk dh fLFkfr esa dqN ifjorZu ;Fkk ikS/kks dk lw[k tkuk] vLFkkbZ :i ls fufeZr 'ksM dk vLFkkbZ@LFkkbZ :i ls lekIr gks tkuk bR;kfn dh laHkkouk ls budkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;kstukvksa ds dk;kZUo;u ,oa j[k j[kko ,d Vhe vk/kkfjr lrr izfØ;k gS ftl ij Vhe ds lHkh lnL; dk nkf;Ro curk gSA ek= ,d O;fDr dks blds fy, nks"kh ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk gSA vkjksih inkf/kdkjh ds LFkkukUrj.k ds i'pkr bldk nkf;Ro muds izfrLFkkuh dk Hkh curk gSA

vkjksih inkf/kdkjh ds cpko&cku ,oa blls lacaf/kr fn;s x;s lk{; ls Li"V gS fd] vfxze ds lek;kstu ds laca/k esa iz;kl fd;k x;k gSA lacaf/kr dehZ dks dbZ uksfVl Hksts x;sA dqN ;kstukvksa esa vfxze dk iw.kZ lek;kstu fd;k x;k gSA rRlaca/kh lk{; Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA yxk;k x;k vkjksi lk{; vk/kkfjr ugha gSA fcUnwokj cpko&cku ij mik;qDr dk earO; Lor% Li"V gSA bl vkyksd esa vkjksih inkf/kdkjh dk cpko&cku Lohdkj ;ksX; izrhr gksrk gSA

vxzlkj.k&

dkfeZd] iz'kklfud lq/kkj rFkk jktHkk"kk foHkkx] >kj[k.M] jk¡ph ds ladYi la0&412 fnukad&19-01-2016 ds lanHkZ esa lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh varxZr vafre izfrosnu dh vfrfjDr nks izfr;ksa ds lkFk ewy vfHkys[k iz/kku lfpo] dkfeZd] iz'kklfud lq/kkj rFkk jktHkk"kk foHkkx] >kj[kaM] jk¡ph dh lsok esa voyksdukFkZ o vxzsrj dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf"kr dj nh tk;A**

English Translation:

“The defence statement of the delinquent officer, which itself is evident, is admissible.

It is remarkable here that the relevant schemes were sanctioned in the year 2006-07. It is obvious that the work of schemes would have commenced in the year 2006-07. The tenure of the delinquent officer at Rajnagar Block was till 31.12.2007. Site inspection of schemes was conducted on 30.07.08. During this period, possibility of some changes like wilting of plants, temporary/permanent destruction of temporarily constructed shed etc. under the schemes could not be ruled out. The implementation and maintenance of schemes is a team based continuous process which includes liability of all the team members. Only a single person could not be termed guilty for it. After transfer of the delinquent officer, it is also the responsibility of the officer replacing him.

It is evident from the defence statement and the evidence adduced in this respect by the delinquent officer that he has made effort to adjust the advance. Several notices were issued against the concerned employee. Advance is totally