IMPORTANT POINT
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 employee an opportunity to respond.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has thrown challenge to the penalty order contained in Memo No. 80(S) dated 05.01.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, whereby the petitioner has been slapped with the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect with a further direction to recover a sum of Rs.99,993.67/-. It has also been directed by this order that the petitioner would not be entitled for anything than what he has been paid under Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code during the period of suspension. The appellate order contained in Memo No. 8125(S) dated 22.11.2012 Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi is also under challenge.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details what has been pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the erstwhile State of Bihar in the month of December, 1995. After rendering around 14 years of service, he was suspended by office order dated 4.9.2009. A departmental proceeding was initiated by framing memo of charge on 9.2.2010 (Annexure2). There are four charges leveled against the petitioner. One, relates to getting the sanction of estimates of 20 numbers each for a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the discretionary quota so as to bring the same within the jurisdiction of the Executive Engineer. Two relates to establish that on enquiry it was found that the work was shown to have been executed with respect to additional WBM Grade-III and the same was approved but the enquiry revealed that the work of WBM Grade-III was not at all executed. Three relates to financial year 2008-09. The charge against the petitioner is that under the discretional quota, the estimates were sanctioned for doing earth work in the flank and to lay the moorum and the work was also shown to have been executed. On enquiry it was found that in the maximum roads, works were not executed; and four is related to execution of the work at departmental level, but neither the materials were obtained nor the work was executed by the labourers.

4. The charges were, therefore, framed on these allegations against the petitioner. As directed, the petitioner submitted written statement of defence to the memo of charges on 24.3.2010. A supplementary written statement of defence was also filed by the petitioner on 15.09.2010. Finally, the inquiry officer conducted a thorough enquiry, but none of the charges were found to be proved against the petitioner. As per enquiry report dated 12.07.2011, the Deputy Secretary of the Government, Road Construction Department issued second show cause notice on 15.10.2011. The reply thereto was also filed by the petitioner on 11.11.2011. The impugned penalty order thereafter was passed on 05.01.2012 with the penalty as reflected above. The departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 25.4.2012, which also stood rejected on 22.11.2012. The writ petition has, therefore, been preferred challenging the penalty order as also the appellate order.

Contentions of the Petitioner / Employee

5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel, assisted by Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appears for the petitioner. Mr. Tandon contends that from bare perusal of the memo of charge at Annexure-2, it is evident that the charge was framed by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, who is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. It is further contention of the petitioner that the enquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer and none of the four charges were found to be proved as against the petitioner, which is evident from the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer at the foot of each of the charges. It is further contended that in a case where the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent employee, still the disciplinary authority has power and jurisdi