Minor penalty imposition requires strict compliance with Rule 19: imputations notice, representation opportunity, findings on each charge. Non-service of enquiry report violates natural justice; appellate authority must consider related criminal acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of impugned order as contained in Memo No.2709 dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby after conclusion of the Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner had been imposed with the punishment of withholding of three increments with non-cumulative effect.

2.1. The petitioner further prays for quashing of the Appellate Order as contained in Memo No.2948 dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), issued by the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the Departmental Appeal preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed and the punishment was confirmed.

2.2. The petitioner also prays that after setting aside the aforesaid impugned order dated 01.10.2018 and Appellate Order dated 02.11.2023, the benefits which have been withheld, be released.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed in utter violation of the “Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016”. He submits that the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the materials which surfaced during enquiry. He submits that the second show cause before imposing the punishment was also not issued to the petitioner. It is his contention that though the punishment is minor in nature, yet it was the duty of the respondents to follow the procedure laid down in the aforesaid Rules. He further contends that for the self-same charge, a criminal case being Doranda P.S. Case No.535 of 2012 was instituted under Section 409 IPC and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that the Trial Court after a full-fledged trial, considering the evidences, acquitted the petitioner. He lastly submits that since the petitioner was acquitted for the self-same charge, the respondents should have considered the said acquittal and should have dropped the Departmental Proceeding.

4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State opposes the argument of petitioner’s counsel and submits that admittedly the punishment which has been imposed is a ‘minor punishment’. He submits that in a minor punishment, it is not necessary to hold the regular Departmental Enquiry. As per him, in this case though a regular Departmental Enquiry was conducted but since the punishment is minor, it cannot be said that there is any procedural illegality. He also submits that the petitioner filed an Appeal and the Appellate Authority gave opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case and on each point, the Appellate Authority had recorded her finding and thereafter the Appeal stood dismissed. He submits that acquittal in the criminal case will not have any binding effect in the Departmental Proceeding. He lastly submits that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is of 21^st August, 2019, whereas the original order of punishment was passed on 01.10.2018 i.e. prior to her acquittal.

5. The facts of this case are as follows: -

5.1. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 20.11.1997. She was appointed as a Headmaster w.e.f. 27.05.2009.

5.2. During the period 2011-12, while the petitioner was posted at the Hinoo United High School, Ranchi, an incident had occurred in the School, which resulted in issuance of Departmental Charge-sheet against the petitioner and also initiation of a criminal case being Doranda P.S. Case No.535 o