PARWIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

(2.) The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the charge-sheet issued under Memo no. 998(S) W.E dtd. 7/2/2008 (Annexure-2), and also for quashing of the order dtd. 12/8/2009 as contained in Memo no. 4022 (S) (Annexure-7), whereby the punishment order has been passed against the petitioner.

(3.) Apart from other grounds raised in the instant writ application, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order of punishment (Annexure-7) and contended that no reason, whatsoever, has been supplied by the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment. He further contended that now the law is no more res-integra that in every administrative decision the authorities are required to supply reasons which should be clear, composed and transparent. However, by going through the impugned order of punishment, it clearly transpires that no reason has been supplied by the disciplinary authority. He further contended that one of the punishments is with respect to non-payment of full salary during the period of suspension in view of the Rule 97(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, however, no separate notice as required under the law, was ever served to the petitioner. As such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.