The disciplinary authority that initiates proceedings must be the appointing authority; actions taken by a subordinate authority are illegal and violate principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

1. Initially the petitioner had filed W.P.(S) No.5610 of 2009 on 02.12.2009 for the following reliefs:-

“(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction for quashing the notification as contained in notification No.28/04 dated 7.1.05 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished for the punishment of Censure and 3 annual increments have been withheld with cumulative effect.

(ii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondent to forthwith release the entire arrears of difference of salary along with penal interest.”

And for other ancillary reliefs.

2. Thereafter the respondents- State of Jharkhand had appeared and filed counter affidavit on 22.01.2010 and although the copy of counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar was served to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 28.01.2010 but the said counter affidavit of the State of Bihar is not on record.

3. Thereafter even the petitioner had filed supplementary affidavit on 26.06.2012 and 25.10.2016.

4. Thereafter the amended writ petition was filed on 14.01.2013 which was filed in the light of the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Alok Singh).

5. In the amended writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer, as follows:-

“(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification as contained in notification No.8/04 dated 7.1.2005 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished for the punishment of Censure and 3 annual increments have been withheld with cumulative effect.

(ii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondent to forthwith release the entire arrears of difference of salary along with penal interest.

(iii) For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing the order dated 18.10.2002 whereby and whereunder departmental proceeding has been initiated against the present petitioner as the same is completely with malice as because the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, who had initiated the proceeding, was held guilty in a complaint filed by the petitioner and just after 2 months of conviction of the impugned order was passed.”

And for other ancillary reliefs.

6. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar, who has appeared in person and argued this case, Mr. S.P. Roy, learned G.A (Bihar) for the State of Bihar and Mr. Ranjan Kumar learned A.C to Sr.SC-I for the State.

7. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Notification dated 07.01.2005 (i.e. Annexure-14) passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government by which the punishment of Censure and withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect has been made, are illegal, arbitrary and out of malice at the behest of the Respondent No.5. It is submitted that the petitioner was not an employee of the State of Bihar and yet the P.C.C.F, Bihar had initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner and later on even after transfer of the petitioner to the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation of the State, the departmental proceeding had continued and the punishment order was passed by the State of Jharkhand who has no authority to impose any punishment upon the petitioner. It is submitted that though