The court ruled that disciplinary actions must consider the context of the employee's role and established procedures, emphasizing the need for fairness in departmental inquiries.

JUDGMENT :

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief(s):-

(i) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), specifically a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 02.12.2021 (Annexure-9 of this writ application) issued under the signature of respondent no.3, whereby punishment of 'stoppage of one annual increment with non- cumulative effect' has been passed, and further for quashing of entire departmental proceeding initiated vide resolution dated 17.10.2019 (Annexure-1 of this writ application), passed in the name of His Excellency the Governor of Jharkhand, under the signature of the respondent no.3.

(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release the arrears of salary, relating to the order of punishment, as also consider the petitioner for promotion, w.e.f. the date 10.08.2021 when batch mates/ juniors have been promoted, and other consequential benefits.

3. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ application is that on 17.10.2019 a decision was taken by the department to initiate departmental proceeding, vide resolution dated 17.10.2019; whereby it was pointed out that for the year 2014-15, in the Water Way Division, Hazaribagh, several irregularities were committed, relating to repair works. Therefore, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, under Rule 16 & 17 of Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as 2016 Rules), for imposition of major penalty. It was also recorded that the petitioner had to submit reply to the PRAPATRA 'KA' being provided along with the decision, within a period of 2 weeks before the appointment of Enquiry Officer. One Presenting Officer was also appointed. One PRAPATRA 'KA' was also provided, along with decision dated 17.10.2019, under Rule 16 and 17 of the 2016 Rules. The PRAPATRA 'KA narrates two charges against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred reply, denying all the charges leveled against him.

The petitioner submitted that in relation to charge no.-1, for the payment of first current bill dated 27.03.2015, he was not posted at the site in issue/dispute. In relation to the second current bill dated 11.07.2015, payment was made on the basis of work done, and as per the agreed amount, provided in Agreement No. 05 F2/ 2014-15, dated 09.02.2015, entered between the department and the contractor for the project of renovation of Golai Weir Scheme and renovation of Dulki Reservoir Scheme of the disputed site. It has been further stated that the agreement amount, as also the pre-estimation raised by the earlier Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer did not include the petitioner. The technical sanction that was given by the Chief Engineer for renovation of Golai Weir Scheme and by the Superintending Engineer for renovation of Dulki Reservoir Scheme, and agreement signed by the Executive Engineer does not involve any role of the petitioner.

4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the place as an additional charge for two months i.e. from 30.06.2015 to 14.09.2015. For this period, he made payment on the basis of agreed amount, as per the agreement. Therefore, none of the allegations can relate to any misconduct on part of the petitioner. The departmental enquiry took place before the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer submitted his reply supporting the case of the petitioner, and saying that case against the petitioner is not maintainable, as he was not posted at the time when the estimation had happened, further even the agreement amount that has been alleged as to be more than required has been said to be not the fault of the petitioner. Thus, he has also opined that the petitioner can b