The court ruled that failure to provide inquiry reports and examine witnesses violates natural justice, rendering disciplinary actions arbitrary and illegal.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the Resolution No.167 dated 06.01.2010 (Annexure-18) issued by the Joint Secretary-II, Jharkhand State Electricity Board by which it has been informed that the Board has decided to deduct 10% from the Gratuity amount payable to the petitioner after finding his reply dated 10.09.2009 unsatisfactory to the show cause Resolution No.3658 dated 29.08.2009 issued by the Joint Secretary-II, Jharkhand State Electricity Board by which show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to harassment and several Enquiry Officers have been appointed in this case. However, none of the Enquiry Officer had concluded the departmental proceeding. It is submitted that more than 5-6 Enquiry Officers were appointed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and still the guilt of the petitioner could not be established. It is submitted that even the copy of the enquiry report was not served by the Board to the petitioner. It is submitted that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1990-91 and 1992-93 respectively and the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 07.08.1999 after lapse of more than seven years. It is submitted that one Madan Mohan Lal Das, Superintending Engineer was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that after bifurcation of the State and fresh enquiry was conducted by the respondent-JSEB vide order dated 03.09.2002 by appointing new Enquiry Officer and the petitioner has submitted reply on 28.10.2002 vide Annexure-7. It is submitted that even thereafter the enquiry continued for long period and in the meantime, one N.N.P Sinha, Retired I.A.S Officer was also appointed as Enquiry Officer and who also submitted Enquiry Report to the effect that the enquiry could not be completed due to non-examination of the witnesses. Thereafter fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed. It is submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner had retired on 30.06.2009. However, the Department instead of talking the departmental proceeding had converted the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules without issuing any formal order for initiation of proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. It is submitted that finding of the department is based on mere surmises and conjectures and the charges has not been well established and still the department has issued Annexure-18 by deducting 10% amount of gratuity from the Gratuity amount of the petitioner and hence the impugned order may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-JSEB has submitted that the impugned order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the respondent is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that grave charges has been levelled against the petitioner for causing huge loss to the extent of Rs.8,04,857, Rs.1,11,163, Rs.1,13,950 and also for staying the recovery of Rs.2,48,996/- and Rs.88,755/-respectively. It is submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and he was permitted to file explanation to the show cause issued to him time to time. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer had submitted its report and the guilt of the petitioner was found during the enquiry.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSEB has emphasized the averments made in paragraph-6 to 16 of its counter affidavit. It is further submitted that even after superannuation of the petitioner on 30.06.2009, the department had initiated proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules i.e. the impugned order by which the petitioner was asked to file reply as to why 10% amount of gratuity be not deducted from his