BHARAT PRASAD VERMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of order communicated by letter dated 13.03.2001. The petitioner was appointed on 01.04.1964 and has superannuated from service w.e.f. 29.02.2000. When the petitioner was posted as Block Co-operative Extension Officer at Jharia, two complaints were made against him, both to the Minister, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. Copy of one complaint dated 19.01.1994 was supplied to the petitioner and he was asked to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 25.06.1996. In the meantime, a charge memo dated 08.06.1996 was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his defence on 03.06.1997 denying the charges. He submitted necessary documents along with his reply in support of his defence that charges were baseless. The petitioner was served the punishment order dated 05.12.1997. Neither the departmental proceeding was conducted nor a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. The order of punishment dated 05.12.1997 was passed without even issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner moved High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 375 of 1998 (R), which was disposed of by order dated 30.06.1999 as the petitioner had not availed the remedy of appeal provided under the service rules. The petitioner, thereafter preferred Service Appeal No. 15 of 1999, which was partly allowed by order dated 11.01.2001. The original order of penalty dated 05.12.1997 was modify to the extent that "two annual increments were ordered to be withheld with non-cumulative effect." The said order was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 13.03.2001. The petitioner has challenged the said order contained in letter dated 13.03.2001 by filing the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 supporting the impugned order.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Mohd. Ramzan Khan' and several decisions of Patna High Court, the order of punishment is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that non-supply of the enquiry report and deprivation of an opportunity to reply to the proposed punishment have caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.