NARESH PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while Ms. Shivani Kapoor, AC to learned SC-II appears for the respondent-State.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dtd. 6/3/2012, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka as well as the Appellate Order dtd. 8/11/2017 (Annexure- 15) and further for a direction upon the petitioner to pay the entire salary for the period of suspension, as the whole departmental proceeding was conducted in utter violation of principle of natural justice.

(3.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. In the year 1982, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Class-IV employee and accordingly, he joined his services on 16/3/1982 in the Office of Block Development Officer, Palajori, Dumka. Thereafter, petitioner was promoted posted in the office of Deputy Commissioner, District Establishment Cell, Dumka to Class-III post on 27/1/1994. It is the case of the petitioner that while discharging the assigned duties, the petitioner was sent on deputation in the office of Circle Officer, Jarmundi as Incharge of Circle Najir-cum-Tample Nagir of Baba Basukinath Temple, Dumka on 5/1/2002. The duties assigned to the petitioner was to keep the offerings of Baba Basukinath Temple received in the form of money, ornaments, etc. in safe custody. As no night guard was posted in the Nazarat, the petitioner requested the concerned authorities to relieve him from the charge of Nazarat of Basukinath Tample but the respondent did not pay any heed to his request. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the night of 12/9/2010, an incidence of theft took place in the temple of Baba Basukinath and for which a FIR being Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 159 of 2010 dtd. 13/9/2010 was lodged by the petitioner against unknown persons for offences u/s. 461, 379 IPC. The police investigated the matter but could not find any clue regarding the persons involved in the theft and finally submitted final form and the case was closed. For the said incidence, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide memo No. 1271 dtd. 15/9/2010, suspended the petitioner in contemplation of departmental proceeding. Subsequently, by memo No. 708 dtd. 15/3/2011, charges were framed against the petitioner and the same was communicated to him with a direction to reply to the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dtd. 9/4/2011 submitted his reply denying all the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, neither any witnesses were examined nor the petitioner was given opportunity to present his case and straightway enquiry report dtd. 15/9/2011 was submitted holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Subsequently vide memo No. 1525 dtd. 8/12/2011, second show-cause was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and the petitioner was directed to submit his reply within 15 days. The petitioner having no other option, submitted his reply vide letter dtd. 28/12/2011 stating therein that the allegations are not true and the enquiry report is not based on any evidence. However, without taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner, vide memo dtd. 6/3/2012 the petitioner has been awarded major punishment of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect and the suspension of petitioner was revoked and it was further held that he will get nothing for the period of suspension. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dtd. 6/3/2012, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division and the Appellate Authority without applying his independent mind by a non-speaking order dtd. 8/11/2017 rejected the appeal of the petitioner in a most arbitrary manner.