YAMUNA RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State -respondents. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.10.2004 as contained in Annexure -3, order dated 19.1.2006 as contained in Annexure -4 as well as the order dated 5.8.2006 as contained in Annexure -5 by which services of the petitioner was' dismissed.

(3.) AS against that, the learned counsel appearing for the State while referring the counter affidavit submitted that there are concurring findings of fact and therefore, this court should not entertain this petition as there is no procedural lacuna while conducting inquiry proceeding. It is further submitted that even Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority followed all the requisites procedure and thereafter after careful consideration of the material on records, passed an order of dismissal and it should not be disturbed by this Court. The learned State Counsel while referring the findings of the inquiry officer submitted that in a service book maintained by the respondent the petitioner has submitted affidavit/declaration with regard to caste certificate and it was signed by the petitioner and on the basis of the service record the Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority have proceeded further and decided to dismiss the petitioner from service, which according to the State Counsel, is just, legal and valid and no interference is called for by this court. The learned counsel appearing for the State while referring the order passed by the Appellate Authority submitted that the Appellate Authority also considered all the points raised by the present petitioner in his appeal and passed detail reason order while confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. It is lastly submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate in a criminal case is not binding on the Disciplinary Authority. The inquiry proceeding and the criminal case both are independent proceeding and therefore, according to him, submissions made by this petitioner should not be accepted. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the aforesaid judgments cited by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority have passed reason orders after following due process of law. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that in the event of allowing this petition, the petitioner's prayer with regard to reinstatement with 50% back wages should not be entertained by this Court as he has been dismissed from service long back and no work has been done during the intervening period, even he cannot claim his salary during intervening period as a matter of right as the petitioner is out of service.