GAYA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while was at the verge of his retirement from the post of Head Clerk in the office of Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh, one Krishndeo Prasad Singh, Zila Mantri of Jharkhand Health Employees Union, Hazaribagh Branch made a complaint before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, Respondent no. 2 on 7.8.2003 putting forth so many allegations against the petitioner. On getting complaint, Respondent no. 2 asked the Regional Deputy Director of Health Services, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, Respondent no. 3 to make an enquiry with respect to allegation levelled against the petitioner, who on enquiry being entrusted asked Krishndeo Prasad Singh to appear before him. Krishndeo Prasad Singh having appeared before the Respondent no. 3 made specific statement that he has not made any complaint against the petitioner and the complaint petition never bears his signature. However, Respondent no. 3 proceeded with the enquiry and did find that most of the allegations are true. Thereupon, Respondent no. 3 asked the petitioner to submits his explanation as to why not a departmental proceeding be initiated against him. Pursuant to that, petitioner submitted his explanation before the Respondent no. 3, who submitted its report to the Respondent no. 2 recommending therein to initiate a proceeding against the petitioner. Upon which, Respondent no. 2 asked the Respondent no. 3 to initiate departmental proceeding. Accordingly, respondent no. 3 passed an order dated 26.9.2003 (Annexure 7) for initiating a proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within three weeks. It was also ordered that the departmental proceeding shall continue even after superannuation of the petitioner and the payment of retiral dues shall be subject to result of the departmental proceeding. The petitioner did retire on superannuation on 30.9.2003. Thereupon the petitioner submitted his show cause on 16.10.2003 which was forwarded to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad, Respondent no. 5, enquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry. In spite of submission of the show cause, when Respondent no. 5 did not proceed with the matter, the petitioner made several requests before the Respondent no. 5 to proceed with the matter but nothing was done in this respect and therefore, the petitioner made a complaint before the Respondent no. 2, Commissioner, North Chhotangapur Division, Hazaribagh, who gave direction to conclude the proceeding at the earliest but it also went in vain and, therefore, the petitioner filed this writ application challenging initiation of the proceeding itself. However, during the pendency of the writ application, enquiry officer submitted its report on 26.8.2004 (Annexure 17) whereby he found the petitioner guilty for the charges. Thereupon the petitioner was asked to submit its second show cause. On submission second show cause, an order was passed as contained in memo no. 931(5), Ranchi dated 7.12.2005 (Annexure 19) whereby an order was passed to withhold 15% of the amount of pension. Those orders as contained in Annexures 17 and 19 were sought to be quashed through an interlocutory application bearing no. 3398 of 2007 which was allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceeding was initiated on the following six charges.

(3.) It was submitted that on each and every charge, details show cause was submitted wherein it has specifically been stated that so far charge nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, the petitioner being incompetent to take decision cannot be said to be responsible for the alleged act as any order with respect to absorption is not supposed to be passed by this petitioner, rather the order in that respect would always be passed by the appointing authority and that drawing and disbursing officer is posted under the order of the Government and the petitioner has nothing to do in the matter of posting of one drawing and disbursing officer in place of other and that if the committee did not take decision for transferring the Non-Medical Staff, the petitioner can not be held responsible for that and that there has been absolutely no material to justify the allegation that the petitioner collected money under the threat of putting them to transfer, still the enquiry officer recorded the guilt of the petitioner for the aforesaid charges.