IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, affirming that the inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with legal principles, with no grounds for interference.

JUDGMENT :

S. N. Pathak, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 10.11.2014, passed by the Commissioner, Ranchi in Appeal under Rule 4 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1935 against the order dated 08.01.2014, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega.

Further prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order dated 08.01.2014, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, communicated to the petitioner on 16.01.2014 vide Memo No. 13, dated 11.01.2014, dismissing the petitioner from service under Rule 19 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Secretary (Appointment, Service Condition and Duty), Rules, 2002 Rule 2 (VIII) of Bihar & Orissa Subordinate Officer (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1935 and Rule 165 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Board Miscellaneous Rules, on the basis of Enquiry Report of Gandur Bhagat, Project Officer, Meso Area, Simdega in departmental Enquiry No. 01 of 2009.

3. The fact of the case in brief is that petitioner was working as a Panchayat Sewak under Kurdeg Block, Simdega and had to follow the instructions of the concerned Block Development Officer. Pursuant to memo no. 63(ii/G.P., dated 29.06.2009, petitioner was suspended by the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega with immediate effect and Ms. Durga Kumari Sinha, Establishment Deputy Collector, Simdega was appointed Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, petitioner was served with copy of Charges in Form – Ka without any enclosures mentioned therein and even after several communications, the same was never supplied to him. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his reply on 06.07.2009 denying the allegations levelled against him. In the meantime, after transfer of Enquiry Officer – Ms. Durga Kumari Sinha, another District Panchayat Raj Officer namely Shashi Sekhar was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Ms. Preeti Kishku was appointed as Presenting Officer by order of the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. Petitioner was asked to appear on 10.08.2009 along with its evidence and explanation before the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. Petitioner filed the explanation dated 28.08.2009 before the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Upon receipt of explanation, the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, vide his order dated 15.12.2009, communicated to the petitioner by Memo No. 133(ii)/GP, dated 15.12.2009, revoked suspension order of the petitioner and he was transferred to Kurdeg Block. Petitioner made a request before the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega vide application dated 19.12.2009 for dropping departmental enquiry and for payment of arrears of pay and subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension but he was paid subsistence allowance only and arrears of pay was never paid to him leading to financial hardship to the petitioner. The Enquiry officer was again changed and pursuant to order dated 14.07.2010 of the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, the enquiry was entrusted to Gandur Bhagat, Project Officer, MESO Area, Simdega. During the course of enquiry, the BDO, Kurdeg submitted additional charges in form Ka against the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer without order of the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, which is illegal and improper. The related documents with charges was never supplied to the petitioner in spite of repeated request.

4. Mr. L.K. Passi, learned counsel representing the petitioner argues that the charges levelled against the petitioner were quite vague and cryptic. Petitioner demanded details of charges along with copy of the documents referred therein by way of several applications but the same was never made available to him. learned counsel further argues that the enquiry officer did not hold enquiry as per the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules nor has followed the instructions as contained in Rules 160 to 170 of the Bihar and Orissa Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1993. Learned counsel further argues