TULSI DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks for quashing the entire departmental proceeding vide Memo No. 3458 dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure-2) and the subsequent order of punishment contained in Memo No. 2536 dated 9.9.2004 (Annexure-1).

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was appointed in the Bihar Education Service (Inspection Branch) Class-II in the year 1990 and was posted as Area Education Officer, Barahat in the district of Banka. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to different places and after being posted at Garhwa, he was surprised to receive the impugned memo by which a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in respect of alleged charges, which related to his place of posting, which falls within the territory of successor State of Bihar and also to the period prior to 15.11.2000. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order has, thereafter, been passed on 9.9.2004 without any inquiry or second show cause to the petitioner whereby punishments have been inflicted such as withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect and the recovery of Rs. 96,161/-, which is illegally paid to another employee namely Harihar Prasad Singh, on fictitious signature, at his place of posting at Banka. Further punishment has been inflicted that he should not be considered for administrative post in the matter of his posting in future. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that he had also made representation vide Annexure-8 that on detection of the forged appointment of Harihar Prasad Singh by the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur in the year 1997, an FIR was registered against the Block Education Extension Officer and Office Assistant and the payment of salary of the said persons were stopped, against whom also an FIR was registered and steps for recovery of the said amount was also undertaken. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of punishment on the ground that neither enquiry report was furnished to him nor second show cause notice was handed over to him before inflicting the said punishment. He has further assailed the impugned order on the ground that order is contrary to Rule 49 of Civil Services (Classification and Appeal) and also without the consent of State of Bihar as the period of the alleged misconduct related prior to 15.11.2000 within the territory of successor State of Bihar. It is further submitted that the impugned orders suffers from complete non-application of mind as the disciplinary authority has not disclosed any reason for passing the same.

(3.) The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit, however, the specific submission made in para-7 that neither enquiry report has been served upon the petitioner nor any show cause notice was given to him, have not been specifically denied by them. Although the enquiry report is annexed as Annexure-A but the respondents, despite filing supplementary counter affidavit, have failed to bring on record any copy of second show cause notice served upon the petitioner before passing of the impugned order.