ASHOK PRASAD SAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned S.C-III for the respondents-State through V.C.

(2.) The instant writ application was initially preferred for quashing part of notification dtd. 15/9/2011, whereby while revoking the order of suspension of the petitioner the payment of salary was withheld, however, during pendency of this case a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed which clearly transpires that the entire salary for the period of suspension has been paid to this petitioner; as such, this prayer of the petitioner does not survive.

(3.) From record it further transpires that an interlocutory application was filed challenging the order dtd. 16/12/2011 (Annexure-15 to LA) whereby punishment was imposed upon petitioner including withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The grievance of this petitioner is that though the penalty imposed is a major penalty but admittedly; no enquiry report was handed over to the petitioner and/or no show cause was asked before passing the final order. He further submits that one Smt. Rajbala Verma was conducting officer of the proposed enquiry who was also the reporting officer in the capacity of Secretary of Finance Department and also an officer who dealt with the matter as Vigilance Commissioner/Cabinet (Vigilance Department) as such, she cannot be adjudicator of her own action. Relying upon the aforesaid facts, Mr. Sahani contended that the entire enquiry is vitiated on the above grounds. Even otherwise, though initially the proceeding was initiated for minor punishment, however, the order of punishment is certainly a major one. As such, in view of catena of judgments, the respondent authorities were duty bound to issue a second show cause notice along with handing over the enquiry report and asking for a reply before taking final decision which has not been done in the instant case. As such, the impugned order dtd. 16/12/2011 should be quashed and set aside and all consequential benefits should be given to this petitioner.