SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 1102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Rameshwar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent 
W.P.(S) No. 618 of 2019
Decided On : 13-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, A.C. to G.A.-IV

Failure to strictly comply with court-mandated timelines and procedural instructions in a departmental inquiry, combined with a breach of the principles of natural justice, warrants setting aside the disciplinary punishment, particularly when a remand would serve no purpose due to excessive delay and predetermined bias.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 20 - Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 - Rule 55 - Departmental proceedings - Compliance with court-mandated timelines - Where a court directs a fresh inquiry from the stage of framing charges within a specific timeframe, failure to re-frame charges and conclude the inquiry within the mandatory period renders the subsequent punishment invalid. (Paras 12, 13, 14)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Inquiry proceedings - Failure to provide an opportunity of hearing and an incorrect assertion that an individual did not cooperate with the inquiry constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice - Findings recorded on the basis of available records without hearing the charged person are not tenable in law. (Paras 15, 16, 17)

(C) Judicial Review - Remand - Where authorities have demonstrated a predetermined bias and acted in violation of court directions, and where a decade has passed since the inception of charges, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication is an empty formality and is not warranted. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
A government employee challenged punishment orders arising from a departmental proceeding. Previously, a court had quashed an earlier punishment with the liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry starting from the point of framing charges, within a specific timeline. The authorities utilized the original memo of charges, exceeded the stipulated timeframe, and failed to provide the employee a meaningful opportunity to be heard before concluding the proceeding and imposing punishment.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the authorities neither re-framed charges as directed nor completed the inquiry within the mandated four months. Furthermore, the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice as no hearing was afforded, and records were used to arrive at a conclusion without proper defense verification.

Issues: Whether the departmental proceeding was conducted in strict adherence to previous court directions regarding timelines and framing of charges, and whether the principles of natural justice were followed in reaching the conclusion of guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-compliance with the procedural directions of a court and the denial of a fundamental opportunity for a hearing nullifies the validity of the administrative punishment. Remanding the case is unnecessary given the passage of significant time and the clear disclosure of a predetermined mindset by the disciplinary authority.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders of punishment set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual history of departmental proceedings and prior writ litigation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties' conflicting contentions regarding administrative procedural fairness (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court oversight on adherence to previous judicial mandates (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16)
4. non-compliance with timelines and natural justice invalidates punishments (Para 14 , 17)
5. setting aside arbitrary disciplinary orders due to procedural lapses (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of punishment as contained in File no. 143 dated 05.06.2018 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no. 4) whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect and it has also been ordered that no other payment except subsistence allowance will be payable to the petitioner during the suspension period. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order no. 308 dated 27.11.2018 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 05.06.2018 passed by the respondent no.4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently posted as Junior Engineer in Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle, Dumka. In the year 2012, during execution of Deoghar Water Supply Scheme, a departmental proceeding was ordered to be initiated against the petitioner vide office order no. 159 dated 06.08.2012 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand annexing memo of charge dated 19.09.2011 mentioning inter alia the charge of making payment of huge amount to a contractor through claim with regard to excavation, loading, unloading & stacking of boulders and removal of slush & mud from ‘Nandan Lake’ under Deoghar Urban Water Supply Scheme. After conclusion of the said departmental proceeding, he was awarded punishment of reversion to the lowest stage of his sanctioned time-scale of pay for three consecutive years vide Office Order No. 59 dated 20.02.2014 passed by the respondent no. 4.

3. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 subsequently directed the conducting officer vide Office Order no. 111 dated 08.07.2015 to re-conduct the departmental proceeding mentioning that the finding was not in consonance with the stipulation made in Circular No. 14127 dated 26.12.2012 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. Accordingly, the conducting officer made further enquiry and submitted the inquiry report vide letter no. 796 dated 23.10.2015. Thereafter, suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide Office Order No. 200 dated 28.09.2015.

4. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 2249 of 2014 challenging the Office Order No. 59 dated 20.02.2014 passed by the respondent no. 4. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2015 whereby the order dated 20.02.2014 was quashed with a liberty to the respondent authorities to conduct fresh inquiry against the petitioner from the stage of framing of charge and to conclude the same within four months.

5. It is also submitted that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 2249 of 2014, the Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no. 3) initiated fresh departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide Office Order no. 09 dated 20.01.2016 and made the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Sahebganj as Conducting Officer who in turn was directed to summit inquiry report within one month. The conducting off

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top