Disciplinary proceedings require oral evidence to prove charges; relying solely on document production is insufficient. Furthermore, a disciplinary authority lacks jurisdiction to impose penalties upon a former employee after superannuation in the absence of specific statutory provisions authorizing post-retirement disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order No. 109/2019 as contained in Memo No. 383/Stha. dated 12.10.2019 by which, the proposed minor punishment of “Ban on promotion' was inflicted and he was also deprived from financial benefit thereof. He has also prayed for direction upon the respondents to revise the pension after giving 3^rd MACP promotion to the petitioner which is due on 6.4.2019 and release the differential amount of GPF, Gratuity, Earn Leave and other retiral benefits.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment which has been inflicted upon the petitioner vide punishment order dated 12.10.2019 as contained in memo No. 109/2019 by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, is major punishment. The petitioner has been debarred from promotion for the rest of his service career, which is a major punishment, but the respondents had termed the same to be a minor punishment, which is absolutely illegal. He further submits that the inquiry report has not been served to the petitioner nor any witnesses has been produce in support of the charge, which has been framed against the petitioner. He further adds that the inquiry report, which has been annexed tothe counter affidavit, suggests that the Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner to be guilty. Once the Enquiry Officer has not found the petitioner guilty, no punishment could have been imposed upon him without following due process of law i.e. by giving notice to the petitioner, differing with the findings of the inquiry report. He further submits that the enquiry report is also perverse as in one hand, the Enquiry Officer has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not found guilty of the charge but thereafter has proposed the minor punishment. He also submits that when the charge has not been proved against the petitioner, no punishment could have been proposed. He also submits that the Enquiry Officer has got no authority proposing any punishment.

4. Counsel for the State submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had received the salary for the period, which he was in custody, which is a misconduct. A Departmental Proceeding was initiated and the enquiry report was submitted. Though the Enquiry Officer has held that the petitioner cannot primarily be made responsible for the occurrence, but he has proposed a minor punishment. The second show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner in compliance with the principle of natural justice, thereafter, the impugned order of punishment was passed. He submits that there is no illegality in the entire process.

5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner was a government servant; he was working as Clerk (Nazir) in Thakur Gangti Block. He was an accused in G.R Case No. 1279 of 1999, which was pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka (Bihar). The case was under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier, the petitioner was taken in custody in this case on 19.3.2001 and was released on 24.3.2001. The allegation against the the petitioner is that he suppressed the aforesaid fact of remaining in custody and applied for leave for the aforesaid period, which was granted. It is also alleged that he also received the salary for the aforesaid period. Since the act of the petitioner is against Rule 99 of the JHARKHAND SERVICE CODE , which provides that if a person is taken in custody, he needs to be suspended for the period, which he remains in custody, he was corre