CHANDRADEO DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no.629/Ra. dtd. 12/7/2016 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara- respondent no.3, whereby three punishments have been imposed against the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint being SMVAD/P/2015/12446 was made on 28/8/2015 through Mukhyamantri Jan Samvad Kendra, Jharkhand, Ranchi by some unknown persons against the petitioner alleging that the government land appertaining to Mouza - Dalabar, Thana No.21, Khata no.57, Plot No.524, measuring an area of 26 acres; and plot no.3 measuring an area of 5.26 acres were being cultivated by Mahavir Mandal, Bahadur Mandal, Ajit Mandal, Pradip Mandal, Radheshyam Mandal and Anand Mandal in connivance with the petitioner, a revenue clerk of Nala Circle. Thereafter, the respondent no.6 made an inquiry on the said complaint as per instruction of the higher authorities and submitted inquiry report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara- respondent no.5 vide letter no.1047/Ra. dtd. 11/9/2015 observing that the allegation made against the petitioner was found false and fabricated. In the meantime, the petitioner got the government land measured by a private amin and submitted report to the respondent no. 6 on 7/9/2015 mentioning that 20 persons had illegally occupied the government land of the said Khata measuring an area of 3.39 acre of plot no.524 and measuring an area of 3.50 acres of plot no.3. On the basis of the report of the petitioner, the respondent no. 6 vide notice as contained in memo no.1205 dtd. 6/11/2015 restricted 22 persons from harvesting paddy in the aforesaid land.

(3.) It is further contended that the respondent no. 6 submitted his enquiry report on 23/1/2016 before the respondent no. 3 stating that the encroachment made over the said land had been freed and the allegation made against the petitioner was false and baseless. Moreover, the said land had been freed from encroachment. However, the respondent no.3 suspended the petitioner and issued an order for initiating departmental proceeding against him vide memo no. 69/Ra dtd. 27/1/2016. Further, the respondent no. 6 was directed to frame charge against the petitioner in Form-A and to place the same in four copies to the Additional Collector, Jamtara through the respondent no.5. The Additional Collector was appointed as conducing officer (enquiry officer) and the Circle Officer, Nala- respondent no.6 as presenting officer. However, subsequently vide order as contained in memo no.314 dtd. 17/3/2016 issued by the respondent no.3, the respondent no.4 was appointed as conducting officer and the Respondent no.6 was appointed as presenting officer. The petitioner was served with a memo of charge in Form-A which was replied by him stating that he was in-charge of Halka nos.3 and 4 covering 07 village panchayat and 77 revenue villages, which was a big area, however, as soon as he got information about encroachment over the said land, he took quick action and submitted his report before the respondent no.6 on the same day.