Departmental proceedings require strict adherence to the principles of natural justice, including the substantiation of charges with cogent evidence; mere allegations are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent-State.

2. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of punishment as contained in Memo No.599 dated 10.09.2016 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), whereby the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty upon the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to pay and release the increments and the difference of salary for the period of suspension.

3. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 as a Revenue Karamchari. While posted in Hussainabad Block of Palamu District, he was put under suspension w.e.f. 25.09.2004. After revocation of his suspension, a Memo of Charge was served upon the petitioner being Memo No.523 dated 29.10.2005 and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The allegations in the charge-sheet against the petitioner are that he had left the Headquarter without prior leave/permission; not performing his duty properly; was not responsible and demanded illegal gratification for effecting mutation, he failed to identify the families who were below the poverty line and lastly he was negligent in preparing the voter list.

4. The petitioner filed reply to the charges and denied all the allegations levelled against him.

5. Vide order as contained in Memo No.245 dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), the petitioner was punished with imposition of censure, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and it was further decided that for the suspension period, the petitioner will be entitled only for the subsistence allowance.

6. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of punishment being W.P. (S) No. 571 of 2013 (Satyendra Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.). A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.09.2013 quashed the order of penalty and the Appellate order and directed the respondents to decide the matter afresh. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Disciplinary Authority and the impugned order (Annexure-5) was passed, whereby the Authority passed similar punishment which was earlier quashed and set aside. The petitioner thus, approached this Court.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the meantime, the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31.01.2025.

8. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the respondents without applying their mind and without complying with the order of learned Single Judge, again passed the similar order which was already set aside. It is his contention that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in a most improper manner as none of the charges were proved by cogent and reliable evidence. He submits that four charges were found to be proved but if the charges are seen properly, there would be only one conclusion that the same are vague without there being any specific allegation against the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel representing the respondent-State submits that the petitioner was negligent in his work and in fact did not prepare the voter list properly. He further submits that an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order was passed.

10. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the charge-sheet and the enquiry report.

11. From the charge-sheet, I find that there were five charges against the petitioner, which are as follows:-

i. Without sanc