GOBARDHAN SINGH MANKI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 362(ii) dtd. 13/8/2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no.3) whereby the petitioner has been inflicted punishment by withholding his two annual increments without cumulative effect and no other benefit to be given to him except subsistence allowance paid during his suspension period for the alleged irregularities committed by him in preparing the voter list of regional constituency of Sukurhutu North Panchayat, Kanke Block, Ranchi with respect to Panchayat Election 2010, which has also been affirmed by the Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) vide order dtd. 16/9/2014 passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was the 'Panchayat Sewak' of 'Sukurhutu North Panchayat' during the relevant period, was involved in preparation/correction of voter list of the said Panchayat on the oral instruction of Block Development Officer, Kanke (the respondent no. 4) as other 'Panchayat Sewak' namely Mohan Munda was not able to complete the said work. The petitioner tried to perform the said work with all sincerity, however since only four days were left for the said election, if at all any infirmity was found in the voter list, the same could not have been attributed to him particularly keeping in view that the voter list contained the names of as many as 4,531 voters. In fact, all the infirmities in the voter list as alleged in the memo of charge served to the petitioner were already rectified within the time and the election was conducted without any hinderance.

(3.) It is further submitted that though the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is minor in nature, yet the same is unwarranted as the charge framed against him was itself not proper due to which the respondent no. 4 had written letter no. 1637(ii) dtd. 7/2/2011 to the respondent no. 5 (the conducting officer) to exonerate the petitioner from the charges.