DIGAMBAR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order contained in Memo No.125 dtd. 17/1/2018 (annexed as Annexure-6) passed by the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna by which the petitioner was dismissed from the service and also to set aside the order dtd. 1/8/2018 contained in Memo No.169 (annexed as Annexure-9) passed by the Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Patna.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the office of the District Welfare Officer, Supaul and he was transferred on 20/1/2016 by the order passed from the level of State of Bihar to the District Welfare Officer, Nawada where the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. Counsel submits that he has appeared before the Conducting Officer and deny all the charges. Counsel further submits that the Conducting Officer has conducted the enquiry and submitted his report vide Memo No.2553 dtd. 11/10/2017 on the basis of which second show cause was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the second show cause on 28/10/2017 before the concerned authority. Thereafter, the respondent Director without considering the defence of the petitioner, passed a cryptic order dismissing the petitioner from service vide Memo No.125 dtd. 17/1/2018 which is the order impugned. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has preferred appeal before the Principal Secretary, S.C/S.T., Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna against the order of dismissal on 27/1/2018 and the Appellate Authority without considering this aspect of the matter that for the alleged wrong, one Suresh Prasad, Nazir and Prakash Chandra Yadav, Clerk both were suspended. But, a liberal view has been taken in case of Prakash Chandra Yadav and ordered for compulsory retirement. In case of Suresh Prasad, after the departmental proceeding, the order of compulsory retirement was passed, whereas, the petitioner has been dismissed from the service and the punishment was exorbitant.