PRAVEEN KUMAR GAGRAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner while was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, some complaints were made against him of not holding the Court regularly. On receiving such complaint, the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, vide its letter No. 778 dated 22.11.2008 directed the Petitioner to hold Court regularly but the Petitioner allegedly did not comply that order. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner. Ramgarh, vide its letter dated 1.12.2008 issued a notice to the Petitioner to show cause as to why not the earlier order was complied with which, according to the case of the Respondents, was replied in a very undisciplined manner wherein it was stated that holding of the Court is the personal responsibility of the Sub-Divisional Officer and, hence, any direction in the manner is unwarranted. However, the Petitioner by submitting second show cause expressed his mistake committed in submitting his show cause. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner made recommendation for taking disciplinary action for dereliction of the duty and also for disobedience of the order of the higher authority. Thereafter the Respondent No. 3. Joint Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand issued a letter dated 5.5.2009 to the Petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation on the report, copy of which was enclosed with the letter. Pursuant to that, the Petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges levelled against him which was forwarded before the Deputy Commissioner. Ramgarh for his opinion, who after considering the explanation, did find the explanation to be unsatisfactory. Thereupon, the Disciplinary Authority found the explanation to be unsatisfactory, passed an order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, vide its order as contained in notification No. 2504 dated 30.4.2010 which order has been sought to be challenged by way of this writ application on the ground that the said punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect being major punishment cannot be inflicted with without drawing a regular departmental proceeding and hence, the order/notification No. 2504 dated 30.4.2010 as contained in Annexure 5 is fit to be set aside.

(2.) Mr. R. Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner by referring decision rendered in a case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp1 SCC 504 and in the case of Rang Nath Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar,1997 2 PLJR(SC) 421, submitted that in view of the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect being a major punishment one cannot be inflicted with such punishment without drawing a regular proceeding and hence, the said order being quite illegal is fit to be set aside.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed wherein by referring Rule 168 of the Board of Miscellaneous Rules, it has been pleaded that stoppage of increment being minor punishment can be inflicted against delinquent without drawing a regular proceeding.