Procedural fairness mandates that charges in disciplinary proceedings must be substantiated by examined witness testimony alongside documentary evidence for validity.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J. :

I.A No. 3812 of 2023 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellants for condonation of delay of 155 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and being satisfied with the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

3. I.A No. 3812 of 2023 is accordingly disposed of.

L.P.A No. 190 of 2023

4. The present appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 27.09.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5205 of 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent has been allowed on the ground of non- examination of witnesses and not proving the documents, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the enquiry report as well as the order of punishment dated 05.04.2016 as contained in Memo no. 1776 and the appellate order as contained in letter no. 2504 dated 14.06.2018 have been quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while the respondent was posted as Forest Range Officer, Madanpur Range, Valmiki Tiger Project Division – 2, Bettiah (Bihar), certain acts of serious financial irregularities involving defalcation of government money were detected against him and he was put under suspension vide notification dated 12.06.2002 issued by the Government of Bihar. A memo of charge was issued against the respondent on 01.10.2002 for having committed financial irregularities and defalcation of government money as well as manipulation of record. The respondent submitted his reply on 31.10.2002 as well as supplementary reply on 31.07.2003 denying the charges levelled against him and vide his letter dated 13.09.2003, he also demanded certain documents/records relating to the charges, but those were not supplied to him.

6. The enquiry officer was appointed by the Government of Bihar and enquiry was conducted on different dates. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 10.08.2004 holding the charges against the respondent as proved and he was issued second show cause notice on 16.04.2005.

7. In the meantime, the respondent was allocated Jharkhand Cadre and he joined his services in Jharkhand. Subsequently, his suspension was revoked vide order dated 08.02.2005 and he was posted in Latehar. The respondent submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 25.05.2005 pointing out the defects in the enquiry report. He further pointed out that similarly situated Forest Range Officer, Manguraha Forest Range, Valmiki Tiger Project, Champaran Division-1, Bettiah (Bihar) and other forest guards were also proceeded departmentally but they were exonerated by the appellate authority.

8. The enquiry officer was requested to provide his opinion on the reply to the second show cause notice filed by the respondent which was received through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar. Thereafter, the order of punishment was issued against him vide memo no. 1766 dated 05.04.2016 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,61,050/- was directed to be recovered from his salary and a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed.

9. The respondent thereafter preferred appeal before the Governor, Jharkhand on 22.08.2016 which was rejected and communicated to him under the signature of Joint Secretary, Government of Jharkhand vide letter no. 2504 dated 14.06.201