The failure to supply the enquiry report and show cause notice caused prejudice to the writ petitioner. The punishment imposed must be within the authority of law as prescribed in the list of punishment.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 6953 of 2021

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 07 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that the State appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 07 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 6953 of 2021 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No. 169 of 2021

5. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.02.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4326 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the impugned order of punishment dated 08.08.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as order dated 23.07.2013 passed by the appellate authority have been quashed and set aside and the writ petition has been allowed with all consequential benefits.

6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under:

The writ petitioner while working as Warden in District Jail, Chaibasa, one prisoner, namely, Moti Shandilya attempted to commit 02.09.2009 by iron angle who was admitted in Sadar Hospital and after treatment for 22 days, he died after returning to Jail.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with charge-sheet on 16.07.2011 and was asked to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his show cause reply on 03.08.2011. But, the authority concerned, without considering the show cause, in a mechanical manner, passed the order of punishment vide order 08.08.2011 imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect as well as deprivation of promotion for further three years.

8. Against the aforesaid order, the writ petitioner filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6975 of 2011 before this Court for quashing the order of punishment. The said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 08.02.2012 giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of departmental appeal.

9. The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal before the appellate authority who has dismissed the appeal on 23.07.2013 confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

10. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4326 of 2015. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has allowed the writ petition vide order dated 06.02.2020 by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority and ordered for all consequential benefits. Against the aforesaid order, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred.

11. It appears from the factual aspect that while the writ petitioner was posted as Warden in the District Jail, Chaibasa, he was departmentally proceeded by attributing the accountability due to death of one prisoner, namely, Moti Sandilya who had committed suicide on 02.09.2009 by iron angle.

12. The following charges have been leveled against the writ petitioner, for ready reference the charge-sheet is being quoted and referred hereunder as:

13. The writ petitioner had participated in the regular enquiry and defended his case by showing his innocence. But the Enquiry Officer has come to conclusion by proving the charge. The Disciplinary Authority, while accepting the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, has passed the order of punishment on 08.08.2011 whereby and whereunder two punishments have been inflicted:

(i) Withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect.

(ii) Debarring the writ petitioner from promotion for three years.

14. The order dated 08.08.2011 was carried to the appellate authority b