Disciplinary proceedings are invalid if the charge memo lacks independent approval from the competent authority, violating mandatory procedural rules.

ORDER :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) :

By an order dated 14th July 2022, the writ Court quashed the punishment order contained in Memo No. 2173 dated 19th June 2019 passed against Sanjay Kumar and sent back the matter for a fresh consideration “from the stage of issuance of charge memo” by the Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department of the Government of Jharkhand.

2. This order of the writ Court passed in WP(S) No. 4795 of 2019 has been challenged by the State of Jharkhand.

3. Briefly stated, the respondent who was the writ petitioner entered in service as Executive Engineer on 12th June 1997 in the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department at Giridih (Division-I). By a letter bearing No. 5505 dated 31st November 2017, he was issued a show-cause notice on the allegations of (i) delay in filing of appeal which caused additional financial liability (ii) misuse of official power and depositing money in the bank account of his son and wife (iii) lack of modesty and devotion to duty (iv) taking loan of Rs. 50,000/- from one individual and (v) retaining the government house illegally. The reply submitted by the respondent on 19th December 2017 was not accepted by the Department and vide Notification No. 1283 dated 21st March 2018 a departmental proceeding for major penalty was proposed against him. This is the case set-up by the respondent that alongwith Notification dated 21st March 2018 a charge memo in Prapatra “Ka” was also appended which was issued on the same date under the signature of Mr. Abhay Nandan Ambastha. Later on, supplementary charge memos were also issued under the signature of Mr. Abhay Nandan Ambastha.

4. By a Notification dated 19th June 2019, the following punishments were awarded to the respondent:

(i) reversion to the original post of Assistant Engineer for five years with a further stipulation that no promotion shall be given to him during that period,

(ii) increment for the said period of five years shall be postponed,

(iii) he shall not be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and regain his seniority, and

(iv) during the period of suspension he shall be entitled only for the subsistence allowance.

5. The appeal preferred by the respondent has been dismissed by an order dated 5th July 2019 and, thereafter, by virtue of the Notification dated 16th June 2019 he was posted in the basic rank of Assistant Engineer.

6. The orders dated 19th June 2019 and 5th July 2019 were challenged by the respondent before the writ Court in WP(S) No. 4795 of 2019. The prayers made therein indicate that the respondent also challenged the charge memos dated 21st March 2018 and 4th May 2018 as also the show-cause notice along with the enquiry report. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the charge memo vide Notification dated 21st March 2018 was issued under the signature of Mr. Abhay Nandan Ambastha; supplementary charge memo was issued without the approval of the Governor and; second show cause notice was also issued by the same authority. The respondent further pleaded that the punishment order vide Notification dated 19th June 2019 was also issued under the signature of Mr. Abhay Nandan Ambastha. And, the respondent took a specific ground that non-compliance of the mandatory provisions under Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 (in short, Jharkhand Rules) rendered the charge memo in Prapatra “Ka” illegal and invalid. In these facts, the respondent put forth a plea that the entire departmental proceedings were vitiated and therefore the punishment order was liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the State of Jharkhand supported the punishment order dated 19th June 2019 on the ground that sufficient evidence was produced in the departmental enquiry to support the charges which were held proved by the inquiring officer, and the findings recorded in the report dated 12th December 2018 accepted by the disciplinary and appellate authorities do not wa