RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 27.06.2001, 20.05.2002 / 31.05.2002. The petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry and the misconduct alleged has been found proved and therefore, the order of punishment dated 27.06.2001 has been passed and his appeal has also been rejected by the appellate authority and therefore, he has approached this Court.

(2.) The petitioner who was working as an accounts clerk, was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 12.12.1997. A charge memo was served upon the petitioner on 03.02.1998 and he submitted his reply on 25.05.1998. The petitioner moved the High Court in CWJC No. 2221 of 1997 (R) in which the respondents were directed to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of 05 months failing which the suspension order was to be withdrawn. Since order dated 20.05.1998 was not given effect to, the petitioner filed contempt case bearing MJC No. 110 of 1999 (R). However, the suspension order was revoked and therefore, the contempt proceeding was dropped. The petitioner again moved the High Court in CWJC No. 2407 of 2000 (R) because the departmental proceeding was not concluded even after two years. The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the departmental proceeding was to be stood revoked.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been pointed out that in compliance of order dated 04.08.2000 passed by the High Court in W.P.(S)2407 of 2000 (R), the departmental proceeding was started however, due to suspension of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamau the post remained vacant between the period 19.09.2000 and 09.05.2001 and therefore the departmental proceeding could not be completed within the stipulated time. The allegations against the petitioner is of mis-behaving with a lady officer and a case was also registered in the police station in this connection. The charge against the petitioner has been found proved and therefore, he has been punished. The order of penalty is just and proper and it does not require any interference by this Court.