IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3096 of 2021 Jagdish Paswan …. Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh.

…. Respondents WITH W.P.(S) No. 5035 of 2021 Jagdish Paswan …. Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/ Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi.

2. Under Secretary to Government, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi.

3. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi.

4. Deputy Director-cum-Enquiry Officer, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi.

…. Respondents ------

CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Nehru Mahto, AC to GP-I -----

13/ 01.10.2024 Since questions of law and facts involved in both these writ petitions are same and similar, they are heard together and are being decided analogously.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

Prayers

3. W.P.(S) No. 3096 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner for payment of pensionery benefits. W.P.(S) No. 5035 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 14/A.8-21/2019-1848 dated 06.12.2019, whereby the petitioner was terminated from service. In this writ petition, the petitioner has also challenged the appellate order contained in Memo No. 2293 dated 22.11.2021 by which the departmental appeal preferred against the penalty order dated 06.12.2019 has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the enquiry report dated 21.02.2019 whereby the enquiry officer held the charges proved against the petitioner.

The Facts

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts pleaded in these writ petitions are that the petitioner was appointed on 06.04.1991. A memo of charge was framed in Prapatra-‘Ka’ against the petitioner on 20.6.2016 alleging inter alia that while he was posted as Block Education Extension Officer, Bagodar, he withdrew a sum of Rs. 4,36,000/- and the amount could not be distributed in the schools and while handing over the charge to his successor, he did not hand over the aforesaid details of amount. It is further alleged that a complaint was made against the petitioner with respect to 5 bags of rice, as the petitioner has distributed only 35 bags of rice instead of 40 bags of rice. The third allegation against the petitioner is that there was a criminal case going on against him, being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 14 of 2016. These allegations were enquired into and the enquiry officer submitted the report on 21.02.2019 holding the charges proved. A second show cause notice was called for from the petitioner on 14.10.2019 which was replied by the petitioner on 21.10.2019. The penalty of termination from service was passed on 06.12.2019. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal there-against which came to be dismissed on 22.11.2021. The writ petition was thereafter preferred and in the meantime, the petitioner stood retired on 31.10.2022.

Arguments advanced by learned counsel for Petitioner

5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the termination order submits that the very initiation of departmental proceeding was bad in the eyes of law for the simple reason that the same was proceeded under Rules 49 and 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 which stood repealed by coming into existence of Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal), 2016. Learned counsel submits that the very initiation of departmental proceeding, therefore, was non-application of mind by the authority. Referring to the enquiry report dated 21.02.2019, learned counsel submits that the enquiry officer has held the charges proved against the petitioner without examining even a single witness to support the charge. It is submitted that me