NATHUN SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and therefore, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(2.) The Petitioner was subjected a departmental enquiry pursuant to which major punishment of reversion has been imposed upon him. Annexure 10 to the writ petition contains the report of the enquiry officer . Apparently, the enquiry officer has examined the six charges and the Petitioner's reply to the show cause notice only, and thereafter he has submitted a report finding the Petitioner guilty of all those six charges.

(3.) I have gone through the enquiry report. Firstly, before imposing a major punishment, there should have been a regular enquiry. Secondly, the nature of charges, which consist of charges like embezzlement causing loss to the Government, less goods having been found in stock also causing loss to the Government, higher officials being kept in the dark, disobedience of orders of higher officials and conducting sale in collusion with the purchasers, required proper oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, if any, to be led in the enquiry from the side of the department to bring home the charges, and proper opportunity of cross-examination by the delinquent officer and opportunity to lead evidence in defence, if any. The nature of those charges did not permit of findings merely on the basis of reply of show cause notice.