SACHIDANAND RAI Vs. JHARKHAND HIGH COURT,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant intra court appeal is against the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.1414 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority has been declined to be interfered with.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the appellant/writ petitioner as per the pleading made in the instant appeal which is relevant for the purpose of appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge which is the subject matter of the present intra court appeal are as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has agitated the ground of procedural lapses to the effect of appointment of second enquiry officer after charges having not been proved by the first enquiry officer, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner is not permissible. Altogether six charges have been levelled against the appellant/writ petitioner but only three charges have been proved and the charges are not so serious, warranting passing the order of dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits by referring to the second enquiry report, wherein the charges which have been found to be proved pertains to the absence of the appellant/writ petitioner, the charge pertaining to illegal construction in the Government quarters and the charge pertaining to pendency of the several criminal cases while the charges pertaining to non-furnishing of correct income tax return, the charge pertaining to working as land broker and the charge of having several Bank accounts have not been proved, therefore, in view of the nature of charges having not been proved by the enquiry officer, the order of dismissal cannot be commensurate with the gravity of charges. It has further been submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner is to superannuate on attending the normal age of superannuation sometime in the year 2030 and he has already put his service of about 23 years without any complaint and as such while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority ought to have taken into consideration these aspects of the matter. It has further been submitted that even accepting the charge of absence from duty for a period of one day, for which, the order of dismissal cannot be said to be commensurate. So far as other charges which have been proved, pertains to making illegal construction of house, submission has been made that when the allotment order has already been cancelled, the same cannot be inserted as a charge since the adverse action has already been taken by cancelling the order of allotment, further non-disclosure of several criminal cases which pertains to commission of offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the same has been compounded by making payment of the amount against the cheque issued by him and hence even accepting the charge found to be proved, the order of dismissal cannot be said to be proportionate to the charge committed.