Disciplinary charges invalid if vague without specific dates/times; spot reports cannot substitute full enquiries; salary stoppage on 'no work no pay' impermissible unless prescribed by rules with recorded reasons.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays to quash the Office Order as contained in Memo No.433/ Simdega, dated 04.06.2020 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, whereby the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of non-payment of salary for the period 21.04.2020 to 02.05.2020, on the principle of “No Work No Pay” and it was further ordered that the entry to that effect should be made in the service book.

1.1. The petitioner further prays to set aside the Appellate Order dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), whereby the Appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was dismissed.

1.2. The petitioner also prays for a direction upon the respondents to consequently release the salary of the petitioner for the period 21.04.2020 to 02.05.2020.

2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that there are several illegalities and irregularities in the departmental proceeding. He submits that the charge is vague. He contends that the charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 05.05.2020 and a purported enquiry report was submitted on 08.05.2020, based on which the punishment was inflicted. As per him, in fact no departmental enquiry was conducted, rather the report, based on which the petitioner has been punished, is a Spot Inspection Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, which cannot be said to be the enquiry in the departmental proceeding. He also argues that the Enquiry Officer does not have any jurisdiction to propose the quantum of punishment which has been done in the instant case and his recommendation is absolutely bad and against the Law. He submits that the stoppage of eleven days’ salary on the basis of “No Work No Pay” is not a prescribed punishment under the Rules and the Disciplinary Authority rather has invented a punishment, which is illegal. He submits that no second show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner before imposing punishment.

3. Learned counsel representing the respondent-State submits that the charge-sheet is specific and the petitioner participated in the enquiry, which is evident from the Spot Inspection Report, as the petitioner was present there. He submits that since the petitioner was present there, she cannot take a plea that no departmental proceeding was held. In the Proceeding, there were several persons present who got their statements recorded and based on that the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner. He further submits that it was the duty of the petitioner to ensure proper distribution of foodgrain to the beneficiaries and stop black- marketing but the petitioner by not following the direction of her higher Authorities, remained absent from the Public Distribution Shop (PDS). He submits that at the relevant point of time because of COVID, it was the duty of the petitioner to ensure supply of food grains under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013, but the petitioner failed to do so.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the records of this case, I find that admittedly the petitio