SITA RAM CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner challenges the order of punishment as contained in Memo No.3209 dtd. 29/12/2015, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, by which the petitioner has been punished. Petitioner was reverted to the lowest grade in the pay scale and it was further decided that during the suspension period, he will only be paid the suspension allowance. Further, it was held that this punishment will remain effective till the final decision of the Court. Challenging the same, petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on the ground of delay and also on the ground that no new fact has been brought before the Appellate Authority. This appellate order as contained in Memo No.02/Nig (Appeal)-52/2017 Sah.-80 dtd. 15/1/2018 (Annexure 20 to the writ petition) is also under challenge.

(3.) Challenging these two orders, counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge against the petitioner is nonest. He submits that without application of mind, Disciplinary Authority has inflicted punishment upon the petitioner. Further, he submits that the condition imposed to the effect that the punishment order will remain effective till the final decision of the Court is absolutely vague. Nowhere it has been mentioned that this decision will be subject to final order of which Court and in which proceeding. He had preferred an appeal on the aforesaid ground and all the other grounds and in a mechanical manner Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal.