O R D E R

10th January 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, the learned Sr.S.C. appears for the appellant.

2. No one appears for the respondent No.1.

3. The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (in short, JUVNL) has challenged the order dated 1st March 2021 passed in WP(S) No. 2258 of

2018.

4. The grievance of the JUVNL is that the order of punishment dated 18th December 2015 as modified by the appellate order dated 11th May 2017 has been quashed by the writ Court on such ground which cannot be countenanced in law.

5. By an order dated 18th December 2015, the respondent No.1, who was issued a show-cause for making improper notings in the file for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers, has been awarded the following punishments: (i) stoppage of two annual increments with non- cumulative effect; (ii) punishment of censure; (iii) except the subsistence allowance nothing shall be payable to the delinquent officer during the period of suspension, however, the said period shall be counted for other service benefits; (iv) no promotion for the next one year, and; (v) posting under non-works category.

6. The aforesaid punishment has been modified by the appellate authority by an order dated 11th May 2017 to the extent that the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect has been waived of.

7. The writ Court has referred to the judgment in “Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seeds Growers' Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah” (2006) 6 SCC 548 on the issue of parity in punishment and held as under:

“7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court has ventured to go through the materials on record. It is admitted fact that the petitioner as well as the Joint Secretary namely Chandra Mohan Sharma were charge sheeted for the same charge. The charge against the said Chandra Mohan Sharma was also proved in the departmental proceeding and after the second show cause, the said Chandra Mohan Sharma was exonerated from the charges whereas the petitioner has been punished with such punishment as indicated above. It is not the petitioner who has allowed the promotion. Even assuming that due to the noting of the petitioner anything has happened, the entire responsibility cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. The higher authorities have thereafter considered the case of the persons for such promotion and they have passed the order. The file also moved before the Joint Secretary-II who has also been charge sheeted for the same charges whereas he has been exonerated and the petitioner has been punished which suggests that the petitioner has been made scape goat. The identically situated person has been exonerated and on the ground of parity, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 18.12.2015 is quashed. ”

8. Besides the aforesaid issue, we find that the punishments which have been awarded to the delinquent officer, who is the respondent No.1 before us, are not the punishments provided under the discipline rules, except the punishment of censure. The order of punishment awarded to the respondent No.1 is also improper for the reason that normally multiple punishments should not be awarded to the delinquent officer for a single instance of misconduct. The another infirmity which goes to the root of the order of punishment is that a composite punishment order comprising of major as well as minor punishments should not be awarded to the delinquent government officer.

9. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the writ Court's order and, accordingly, LPA No. 226 of 2022 is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

Dated-10th January 2023

S.B./VK-NAFR