BASUDEO MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and also refused payment of full salary apart from subsistence allowance for which he remained in jail custody by the disciplinary authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide memo no. 231/R dated 19.3.2002, Annexure-1/A. His service Appeal No. 01/ 2002-03 has also been dismissed vide order dated 3.4.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, Respondent No. 2 affirming the original order.

(2.) The petitioner has assailed the appellate order dated 3.5.2006 on the ground that punishment which has been passed is major punishment under the Department Rule imposing stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect having consequences for rest of his career. However, from perusal of impugned order, it. would be clear that no full dress departmental enquiry was held before imposing the said major punishment to the petitioner and the Commissioner, Dumka has erroneously held that it is a minor punishment. It is further submitted that the petitioner had categorically stated in the writ petition. that neither proper departmental proceeding in the eye of law has been held nor the inquiry report was served upon him, which is contrary to the settled procedure laid down for conduct of Departmental Proceeding before imposing such punishment and the same has not been denied.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he was implicated in a criminal case, when he was posted as Halka Karamchari of Saraiyahat Circle Office, Masalia, in P.S. Case. No. 13 of 1996 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 380, 302, 323, I.P.C. Though he was convicted for sentence of death by learned Trial Court but was acquitted by the Patna High Court in appeal preferred by him. On his acquittal, he preferred an application for revocation of his suspension, which was imposed upon him during the pendency of a criminal proceeding on account of his alleged absence from the office and remaining in jail custody. However, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in the year 2001 with certain charges of remaining absent from duty; as also being an accused in Jama P.S. Case No. 13 of 1996 and having remained absent from duty further during which period someone else was asked to discharge his duty.