MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder order dtd. 16/8/2021 has been assailed inter alia on two grounds; firstly that the enquiry officer has not found the charge proved conclusively, rather he on the one hand has accepted the version of the petitioner while on the other hand the enquiry officer has given the finding that such type of behavior of the concerned employee is detrimental to the interest of the school and as such, contention has been raised that so far as the process to impose punishment is concerned it is incumbent upon the enquiry officer to prove the charge conclusively and in absence thereof if any punishment is imposed the same cannot be said to be sustainable. Secondly, so far as order of punishment which contains a punishment that the writ petitioner will not be entitled for the salary for the suspension period save and except the subsistence allowance. Oral argument has been made to the effect that the withholding of salary since is not enshrined in the list of punishment under which the departmental proceeding has been initiated then under what authority of law such punishment has been imposed that is not known to the petitioner. Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, learned S.C. (L&C) V appearing for the respondents has sought for four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Considering the same, let counter affidavit be filed giving para-wise reply along with the legal issues, as raised by the petitioner as reflected hereinabove within a period of four weeks. List this case on 2/5/2023.