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
| 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
AI
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
Disciplinary proceedings against a Group-A officer must comply with procedural requirements; failure to issue a show cause notice by appropriate authority renders the punishment order invalid.
The court ruled that disciplinary actions must consider the context of the employee's role and established procedures, emphasizing the need for fairness in departmental inquiries.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.