GOPI NANDAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under a misconception by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. As order dated 17.4.2012 has already been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition, there was no occasion for filing LA. No. 219 of 2013 seeking permission from the Court to challenge order dated 17.4.2012.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 27.8.1984. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide resolution dated 23.5.2009. Subsequently, the enquiry officer was changed and a new enquiry officer was appointed and the departmental proceeding continued by order contained in memo dated 21.12.2011. An enquiry report was submitted on 27.2.2012 finding the charges framed against the petitioner not proved. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.3.2012 and the final order dated 17.4.2012 withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect, was passed.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that as the disciplinary authority decided to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the final order dated 17.4.2012 has been passed. The relevant paragraph of the counter-affidavit is extracted below: