The charge-sheet must be approved by the appointing authority, and the cancellation of caste certificate must be in accordance with the applicable circular. The issuance of the second show cause notice must include the assignment of reasons for differing with the enquiry report.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 08.07.2015 (Annexure – 3), the second show cause notice dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure – 5), the cancellation of caste and residential certificate dated 08.11.2014 (Annexure – 8) and also for quashing the order contained in Memo No.924 dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure - 9) by which the petitioner was put under suspension.

3. The brief facts as appear from the arguments and pleadings of the parties are as follows :-

I. The petitioner has been appointed pursuant to the examination held under 4th Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) under the category of Other backward Class (B.C.-1) in the cadre of State Administrative Service vide appointment letter dated 11.02.2013.

II. While the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer, Chinya, Garhwa, a show cause notice dated 29.12.2014 has been issued to him, which has been brought on record as Annexure – 1 to the amended writ petition. The said notice stipulates that the petitioner is not a member of Other Backward Class (B.C.-1) and as such why not a departmental proceeding should be initiated against him for his dismissal. The said notice has been replied by the petitioner, as contained in letter No.56 dated 10.01.2015 (Annexure – 2) denying the allegation.

III. Thereafter, it appears that the department has issued the Memo of charge vide Memo dated 08.07.2015.

IV. It further appears that thereafter, Enquiry Officer has started the enquiry and the petitioner has participated in the said proceeding with protest. The enquiry report has been submitted on 13.06.2016 (Annexure – 4) in which the Enquiry Officer has not found the allegation true against the petitioner. Thus, the enquiry is in favour of the petitioner.

V. It further appears that thereafter, the department has differed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accordingly, second show cause notice dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure – 5) has been issued. Although reasons have not been assigned in the second show cause notice, but there is enclosure with the second show cause notice in which there is discussion of the reason and evidence.

VI. It further appears that second show cause notice, issued to the petitioner, has been challenged in the present writ petition by way of filing amendment petition, which has been allowed and the same is under challenge in the present writ petition.

VII. It also appears that the petitioner has been suspended on 05.07.2018 (Annexure – 9).

VIII. It further appears that the petitioner was suspended earlier also on 20.05.2015, but the said suspension order has been revoked on 29.03.2016. Thus, the present suspension order is the second suspension after the second show cause notice.

IX. It also appears that the caste certificate, issued to the petitioner, has been cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih, vide its order dated 08.11.2014 (Annexure -8) which has also been impugned in the present writ petition.

4. The following argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner :-

A. That the petitioner is a Class-II Officer and his appointing authority is the State Government and as such any initiation of the departmental proceedings has to be with the prior approval of the State Government. From perusal of record, it appears that although there is approval for initiation of the departmental proceeding, but the Memo of charge-sheet, issued to the petitioner, has never been approved by the appointing authority and as such the entire proceeding is bad from the stage of the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 08.07.2015. For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. B.V. Gopinath., reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351, especially paragraph Nos.21, 22, 26 and 55, which reads as under:-

“21. It was further submitted that