STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. RAMESHWAR JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 30th August, 2011, passed in W.P (S) No. 3612/2009, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner respondent has been allowed and the order passed in the departmental proceedings of compulsory retirement of the petitioner respondent dated 13th May, 2009 has been quashed and the respondent-appellant has been directed to reinstate the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits and back wages.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner was served with the chargesheet containing nine allegations. It is the case of the writ petitioner that initially a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the S.D.O. Hazaribagh and he found nothing adverse against the writ petitioner. Thereafter another enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer opined that charge nos. 2,3,4, 6 and 9 are not proved and for remaining charges also, no definite opinion can be given. However, the Enquiry officer in the report dated 21st January, 2009, mentioned that the petitioner is guilty in respect of "few" and for charge nos. 4,5 and 7 petitioner is partially found guilty. The petitioner then was served with second show cause notice and according to the petitioner the said second show cause notice was issued because of the advice given by die Advisor to the Governor, which is apparent from the note dated 25th April, 2009, a copy of which has been placed on record by the writ petitioner. It is also submitted by the writ petitioner that a decision was taken by the Advisor to the Governor to compulsorily retire the writ petitioner and that was only followed but without following the procedure of law for any departmental enquiry. It is submitted that the petitioner was not even given copy of the list of witnesses. Furthermore, whatever evidence was recorded at the back of the writ petitioner, that has been considered without affording any opportunity to cross-examine to the writ petitioner. It is also submitted that when the guilt of charge of corruption is levelled, burden of proving the same is heavier upon the Department, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chandra Chattar, 2009 12 SCC 78.

(3.) Learned Single Judge has held in the present matter that there was no fair enquiry at all and the enquiry is only an eye-wash and influenced by the observations made by the Advisor to the Governor and the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.