RADHEY SHYAM LAL KARNA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI AND PRINCIPAL CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by respondent no. 2 dated 24th March, 1999, whereby, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority has been slightly modified in the departmental appeal. Part of this order especially punishment nos. 2 and 3 are under challenge, which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the office of the respondents and he was transferred from Ranchi to Daltonganj on 6th February; 1995 and it is alleged against the petitioner that he had not accepted the transfer order and he had also taken away his service book. The allegations of civil as well as criminal were against the present petitioner. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case vide order dated 14th June, 1999, which is at Annexure-7 to the memo of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon the decisions, 1999 AIR(SC) 1416 as well as in and submitted that once there is acquittal from the criminal charges and if similar are the charges, the order of punishment could not have been passed by the respondents.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was transferred on 6th February,. 1995. and he, has refused to accept the transfer order and he being, the Senior Assistant, had gone on leave without any sanction from 6th February, 1995 and he had also taken away his service book. These are the charges against the present petitioner. Charge sheet was served upon the petitioner and inquiry was conducted and detailed inquiry report has been given and on the basis of the inquiry report, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the charges levelled against the present petitioner is proved, for which, disciplinary authority has passed an order dated 25th July, 1997 at Annexure-5 to the memo of the petition. The petitioner's absenteeism period was treated as leave without pay and three increments with future effect have been stopped. Against this punishment, departmental appeal was preferred before respondent no. 2 and by appellate order, the punishment is altered and absenteeism from 6th February, 1995 to 19th October, 1995 was treated as extra ordinary leave without pay and period of absenteeism was regularized. So far as stoppage of three increments with future effect is concerned, the same was kept as it is and he was given warning for his behaviour. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that much lenient view has been taken by the respondent authorities "and the petitioner, being a Senior Assistant, remained absent from February 1999 to October 1995 because he was transferred. This is an adamant behaviour on the part of the petitioner and he is not obeying the order passed by the respondents. Such type of behaviour cannot be tolerated in the Government service and, therefore, punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be leveled as shockingly disproportionate punishment and there is no legal infirmity in holding departmental inquiry and, therefore, this writ 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: