RAM PRAKASH MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order of punishment, contained in memo No. 1433 dated 16.02.2017, whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.

(3.) As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant in Home Department in the year 1984, by the erstwhile State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the States, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. Thereafter, on being found suitable, petitioner was promoted to the post of Section Officer and then to the post of Under Secretary. At present, the petitioner is holding the post of Under Secretary in the Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was posted as Under Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the petitioner was assigned a file pertaining to absorption/ regularization of employees of Mines Board, Hazaribagh. The said file was allotted to the petitioner only for giving his opinion/ noting to recommendation sent by the Deputy Commissioner- cum-Chairman, Mines Board, Hazaribagh, with respect to absorption/ regularization of 56 persons in different Urban Local Bodies. The petitioner has given his opinion that out of the said 56 persons, 5 persons have already been superannuated and 1 person has been declared as absconder and as such, cases of only 50 employees may be considered for their absorption/ regularization, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the said file with the noting/ opinion of the petitioner was placed before the Joint Secretary and then before the Departmental Secretary, who had directed to mention names of those employees, whose absorption is not possible. It is the further case of the petitioner that after about one year from the date of relieving from the Urban Development & Housing Department, the petitioner was served with the memo of charge dated 09.05.2016, alleging therein that the petitioner had added the names of six non- recommended persons by removing the names of six recommended employees. In the said charge memo it has also been mentioned that on being asked, petitioner submitted that names were included on the verbal direction of Hon'ble Minister Incharge, however, the said Minister has denied any such order.