MANMOHAN LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court for seeking quashing of a Notification contained in Memo No. 2749 dated 21.8.2012, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, issued under the signature of Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said order has been passed in purported exercise of powers under Rule 3(5)(e) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (now adopted by Jharkhand) and framed under sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the ground of his absence from duty from 8.12.2010 to 30.6.2011.

(2.) According to the petitioner his absence for the period 8.12.2010 till 30.6.2011 cannot be alleged to mean that he has abused his position so as to render his continuance in office prejudicial for the public interest. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that after being duly selected for such post of member of Consumer Forum, Bokaro under an advertisement, he was appointed as such vide notification as contained in memo No. 1643 dated 23.7.2010, Annexure-1. The impugned notification has been issued without any notice or show cause to the petitioner. It is once again stated on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of appointment the petitioner was not suffering from any disabilities which are prescribed in the order of appointment dated 23.7.2010. The petitioner was later on implicated in a criminal case being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010. The same was instituted on 6.12.2010 much after his order of appointment. In any case, it has further been stated on behalf of the petitioner that in the said Vigilance Case also the petitioner has been discharged from the alleged charges made under different sections of I.P.C. as also under Prevention of Corruption Act vide order passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 893 of 2012 dated 7.8.2013. It is also submitted that on behalf of the petitioner that in the said period of his alleged unauthorized absence, in fact the petitioner's elder brother had died and thereafter due to his own illness he could not recover for quite a long time till he resumed duty from 1st July, 2011 onwards. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon Annexure-7 series, a report prepared by District Supply Officer, Bokaro dated 21.2.2012, vide letter No. 211, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner did not remain in unauthorized absence and his work was found to be satisfactory. The said report was prepared on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and was also forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 13.3.2012, Annexure-7.

(3.) In these circumstances, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of termination of the membership of the petitioner from the District Forum, Bokaro is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any show cause or notice in violation of the principle of natural justice. It, therefore, deserves to be set aside.