STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. BABUNAND PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defect no.5, as has been pointed out by the office pertaining to page nos.168 and 169 of the memo of appeal i.e., the enquiry report, has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit, dtd. 8/2/2022, as such, the defect no.5 stands removed.

(2.) The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dtd. 24/2/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5994 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment dtd. 22/9/2015, by which, the writ petitioner has been dismissed from service and an order of recovery of Rs.18,28,557.00, was passed, has been quashed and set aside with a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner in service as also with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of inquiry after granting adequate and sufficient opportunity to the writ petitioner.

(3.) The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- The writ petitioner while working as Forest Range Officer, Koderma, subjected to departmental proceeding by issuance of memo no.881 dtd. 6/4/2009 under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the'Rules') 1930. The departmental proceeding has proceeded which ultimately culminated into the order of punishment, by which, the writ petitioner was dismissed from service as also the direction of recovery of Rs.18,28,557.00, was passed. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by challenging the order of punishment dtd. 22/9/2015 by taking the plea of nonobservance of principle of natural justice since, according to the writ petitioner, the charge-sheet has not been supplied in time as also the relevant documents. The aforesaid fact, however, has been disputed by the respondent State.