RAM BAHADUR RAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred against the order of punishment awarded for the misconduct, committed by the present petitioner. The order of punishment is dated 15th June, 1999, which is at Annexure-9 to the memo of the petition, whereby, for the suspension period, the petitioner was made entitled only to subsistence allowance. The amount of Rs. 9,343.80/-, which was retained by the petitioner, was ordered to be recovered with interest and two annual increments with future effect has been stopped. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application being LA. No. 3432 of 2010, in this writ petition, whereby, the order passed by the State of Jharkhand vide order dated 23rd December, 2009 which is at Annexure-12 to the memo of the v interlocutory application is also under challenge. This order has been passed by the State of Jharkhand authority because the appeal was preferred against the action taken by the disciplinary authority and during the pendency of the departmental appeal upon bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand, the papers were sent by the present successor of the State of Bihar i.e. successor State of Jharkhand and, therefore, an order dated 23rd December, 2009 has been passed by the State of Jharkhand in the departmental appeal and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. Against these two orders, the present writ petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved and, therefore, the punishment cannot be imposed upon the present petitioner. Moreover, the imposed punishment is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out at. length from the Inquiry Officer's report, which is annexed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and has submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved. The amount of Rs. 9,343.80/-, which was retained by the petitioner -for some time, has already been deposited which is also reflected from the Inquiry Officer's report and, therefore also, the punishment could not have been imposed upon the present petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 15th June, 1999 (Annexure-9 to the memo of the writ, petition). This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the departmental appellate authority while passing the order dated 23rd December, 2009 (Annexure-12 to the memo of the interlocutory application) and, hence, both these order may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(2.) Learned counsels for the respondents, who are appearing on behalf of the respondent-State authorities, have submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are at Annexure-4 to the memo of this writ petition. It is also submitted by learned counsels that after serving the charge sheet, Inquiry Officer was appointed, detailed inquiry was conducted and inquiry report is annexed with the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. Looking to the detailed inquiry report, it appears that charge nos. 5 and 6 are serious in nature. Sizable amount and the goods worth Rs. 2,33,553/- was found excess in the Chandankiyari store. The goods of such a highly value could not have been retained by the petitioner and it ought to have been reported to the higher officer, from where, these goods have been obtained and how the goods are kept in the store of Chandankiyari. Similarly sizable amount was recovered towards water cess and they ought to have been deposited within fifteen days from the date of recovery, but, the same has been deposited some time after two months, six months and after several years. Moreover, normal behaviour of the present delinquent is not proper with his superior. So far as charge nos. 5 and 6 are concerned, the Inquiry Officer has proved the charges, which is inflicted upon the petitioner and, therefore, charges are absolutely in consonance with the nature of the misconduct. Departmental appeal, preferred by the petitioner, has also been dismissed by the appellate authority at the State of Jharkhand, after bifurcation of the then State of Bihar. Thus, there is no procedural defect in holding inquiry nor the punishment can be levelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed,

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition for the following facts and reasons: