MAHABIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, a member of the Jharkhand Administrative Service, while was posted as Block Development Officer, Topchanchi (Dhanbad), an ex-Member of the Legislative Assembly lodged a complaint against him before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad regarding irregularities being committed in the implementation of the schemes namely, Indira Awas Yojna, Din Dayal Awas Yojna etc. The then Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad on getting the complaint got the matter enquired into by the Additional District Magistrate (Law and Order, Dhanbad), who found the allegations prima facie to be true. Thereupon, an explanation was sought on the aforesaid allegations from the Petitioner, who submitted his explanation but that was not found to be satisfactory and hence, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad made recommendation to initiate a departmental proceeding against the Petitioner. Thereupon, the Government vide its resolution No. 4186 dated 9.8.2006 decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against the Petitioner under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules whereby the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi was appointed as Conducting Officer, who after conducting enquiry found the Petitioner guilty of the charge of selecting persons for allotment of the houses under Din Dayal Yojna, though they were not eligible to get the houses under the said scheme. The Disciplinary Authority on being satisfied with the report awarded following punishments, vide its resolution No. 3154 dated 29.5.2010.

(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 giving second show cause notice or in other words without giving opportunity to the Petitioner of his say in the matter and hence, the said order being quite illegal is fit to be set aside.