DHAIRYA NANDAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Resolution bearing Memo No. 681 dtd. 27/2/2015 issued under the signature of Under Secretary to the Government, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, whereby and where under, punishment of deduction of 10 % pension of the petitioner in terms of Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rule has been passed against the petitioner. Further, prayer has been made to refund the pension amount along with interest and any other relief to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

(2.) As per the factual matrix, the case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was working in Deogarh Circle as Superintending Engineer and work for execution of Deogarh Water Supply Scheme was taken up in the light of work order No. 5456 dtd. 30/11/2007 issued by Engineer-in-Chief of Drinking Water and Sanitation Department in favour of a contractor namely IVRCL, Hyderabad. When the petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer, Water Board Urban Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand at Ranchi, a show cause notice was issued to him vide letter No. 4282 dtd. 5/9/2011 enclosing Memo of Charge and preliminary enquiry report, with a direction to submit his reply in connection with Memo of Charge, failing which ex-parte decision will be taken.

(3.) Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that entire departmental proceeding has been concluded without following the procedures of law as the same stands vitiated as Enquiry Report itself is perverse and also the principles of natural justice have not been adhered to. Learned counsel further argues that in the entire departmental proceeding, nowhere it has been shown that petitioner was given ample opportunity to examine the witness and also documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer was never supplied to him. Learned counsel further argues that even the Enquiry Officer travelled beyond his jurisdiction, which is impermissible in the eyes of law. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel submits that nowhere, it was found by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner is held guilty of grave misconduct neither anywhere, it is stated that what losses were caused to the State Exchequer while coming to a finding of guilt. Learned counsel lastly argues that impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, liable to be quashed and set aside.