MADAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this writ petition is, 'whether the order of penalty is liable to be quashed on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner.'

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 12.04.1982 and he was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 04.11.1994. The petitioner was put under suspension by order dated 26.03.1998. The petitioner moved the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 936 of 1998 (R) challenging the order of suspension. A grievance was also raised by the petitioner with respect to non-payment of any subsistence allowance to the petitioner during the period of suspension. By order dated 26.08.1998 the respondents were directed to make payment of subsistence allowance, if already not paid to the petitioner. The writ petition was finally disposed of on 20.07.1999 with a direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of two months failing which the order of suspension would stand revoked. A further direction was given to the respondents to pay entire amount of subsistence allowance with interest @ 18% p.a. As the departmental proceeding could not be completed within the time stipulated by the High Court, the order of suspension was revoked, however, departmental enquiry continued. On 04.09.1999, the enquiry officer submitted his report however, a copy of the said report was not furnished to the petitioner. It appears that another enquiry officer was appointed who conducted enquiry into the charges against petitioner and submitted his report on 03.12.1999. Again a copy of the second enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to submit a show-cause. Finally, order of termination from service was passed on 08.08.2000. The petitioner moved the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2735 of 2000 (R) which was disposed of by order dated 03.01.2002 with direction to the respondents to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and the petitioner was permitted to prefer an appeal. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed on 09.12.2003. In these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit in which they have not denied that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. The respondents have simply stated that the statements made in paragraph Nos. 4-46 of the writ petition are either matter of record or are by way of submission and as such require no comments. However, a stand has been taken that the impugned orders are legal and proper.