STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22.11.2011 passed in O.A.No.181/2010 quashing the de novo disciplinary proceedings initiated against the third respondent by Memo No. 2902 dated 12.09.2009, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) The respondent No.3 namely Akhilesh Sharma, who is a Member of Indian Forest Service 1985 Batch, was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Chaibasa, between the period 31.08.1992 and 15.07.1995. For certain charges of financial mismanagement and irregularities committed by him in the performance of work and utilization of funds, he was placed under suspension vide Notification No.2523 dated 15.07.1995. A departmental proceeding was contemplated and Memo of Charges were issued to the third respondent vide Charge Memo No.3419 dated 30.08.1995 by the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar, alleging that he has misappropriated Rs.33,77,610.30 in plantation work under the Scheme of Government. The District Administration lodged a F.I.R. in Sadar Thana Chaibasa as P.S. Case No. 35/95 dated 06.05.1995 against the respondent No.3. Another F.I.R. was also lodged by the Conservator of Forest against him vide Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 5/98 dated 20.01.1998 for the defalcation. The respondent No.3 moved the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.131/1996 for quashing the suspension order dated 15.07.1995 and the departmental proceeding initiated vide Memo dated 30.08.1995. Vide order dated 21.04.1998, the Tribunal directed the State to revoke the order of suspension which was challenged by the then Government of Bihar in Patna High Court vide C.W.J.C. No.8523/1999 which was later on transferred to Jharkhand High Court. However, the same was dismissed for default on 10.10.2002 which was later restored but finally stood dismissed as being infructuous.

(3.) In the disciplinary proceedings, the third respondent submitted before the Enquiry Officer on 11.02.2000. The Enquiry Officer found that charge Nos.1, 2 and 3 proved while exonerating the third respondent from charge No.4 and the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report dated 21.07.2003. On 07.10.2005 the Government of Jharkhand forwarded the report of the Enquiry Officer to UPSC with the proposed punishment for recovery of Rs.16,88,805/- and imposing punishment of stoppage of three increments and holding that the delinquent is only entitled to subsistence allowance for the suspension period. The UPSC refused to accord sanction on the ground that there is violation of the provisions of the Rules 8(5), 8(6)(a) and 8(16) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and declared the proceedings as invalid and sent the matter back to the State Government. However, UPSC gave liberty to the State Government that the Disciplinary Authority may rectify those lacunae in the disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent as per the prescribed procedure under AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969, and thereafter refer the case to the Commission, if necessary. The said communication was received by the State in the month of September, 2007.