The scope of judicial review in service matters is limited, and the court cannot substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority. An employee who is inflicted with punishment is not entitled to ACP/MACP benefits during the currency of the punishment.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 7175 of 2013

Lakshman Ram

…

Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Project Building,

Dhurwa, Ranchi

2.

Principal Secretary to the Government, Road Construction Department,

Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

3.

Deputy Secretary to the Government, Road Construction Department,

Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

4.

Mrs. Rajbala Verma, the then Principal Secretary, Food, Public

Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department, Government of

Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi and presently Principal

Secretary, Road Construction Department, Ranchi

... .. Respondents

with

W.P.(S) No. 397 of 2014

Lakshman Ram

…

Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Project Building,

Dhurwa, Ranchi

2.

The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of

Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

... .. Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK

-----

For Petitioners

: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate

For Respondents

: Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II

Mr. S. Bhaumik, Advocate

------

12/ 02.01.2023 The petitioner in W.P.(S) No.7175 of 2013 has approached this Court

with a prayer for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.8469(s)

2

dated 04.12.2012, whereby and whereunder a punishment of reduction to

the 1^st stage of the scale of pay of the original post as well as recovery of

amount to the extent of 1/3^rd of Rs.6,94,196/- has been imposed against the

petitioner. The petitioner in W.P.(S) No.397 of 2014 has approached this

Court with a prayer for quashing of the order as contained in Memo

No.12847 (S) dated 12.12.2013, whereby and whereunder the respondent

No.2 rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of MACP w.e.f.

01.09.2008. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the

respondents to pay and release the benefits of MACP to the petitioner.

2.

Since petitioner is same & one person in both the writ petitions

and as such, these cases were heard together and disposed of by this

common order.

3.

As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was initially appointed

as Junior Engineer in Public Works Department, Govt. of Bihar in the

month of May, 1976. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant

Engineer w.e.f. 1983 itself and further promoted to the post of Executive

Engineer w.e.f. 1993. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the services of

the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand and as such, he joined

in the State of Jharkhand in November, 2004. It is further the case of the

petitioner that he was made In-charge Superintending Engineer in the Road

Construction Department in June, 2008 and in July, 2009, he was posted as

In-charge, Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, but he was

deputed in Urban Development Department. On 07.12.2009, the

respondents vide Memo No.6212 (s) placed the petitioner under suspension

as per provision of Rule 49(A)(I)(b) of the Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal), Rules, 1930 in the garb of criminal investigation after

institution of First Information Report by the CBI in connection with RC

Case Nos.15(A)/09(R), 16(A)/09(R), 17(A)/09(R), 21(A)/09(R) under

Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 491 of the Indian Penal Code read with

Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Road

Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide Memo No.6105(s) dated

15.09.2011, revoked the order of suspension of the petitioner on the ground

after enquiry, the CBI did not find criminal involvement of the petitioner in

3

respect of the aforesaid four cases and he was not s