UMESH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an Officer of the Jharkhand Administrative Service was proceeded against under the charge sheet dated 25.1.2005 issued under the signature of the Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medninagar, Annexure -1 for certain alleged charges for the period of his posting as S.D.O., Medini Nagar namely (i) that he indulged in suspending a Fair Price Shop license without proper investigation and restoring it on his will; (ii) on being asked, he gave explanation to the higher authorities on misleading facts;(iii) indulged in manipulation of Rules and (iv) showing callous attitude towards the weaker sections of the society. He was punished by the impugned order contained at memo no. 1192 dated 5.3.2011 (Annexure -5) issued under the signature of respondent no. 3, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand imposing him with major punishment of withholding of 4 increments with cumulative effect and that for the next 4 years he would not be considered for promotion from when it is due.

(2.) THE short point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner faced departmental proceeding and appeared in the same as would also be evident from the note sheets of the inquiry proceeding annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 dated 6.8.2012, but after submission of the inquiry report on 24.11.2010 the Disciplinary Authority, without serving any second show cause notice or copy of the inquiry report proceeded to impose the punishment, which are in teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad and Ors. Vrs. B. Karunakar & ors. reported in : (1993) 4 SCC 727 as also in the case of Union of India & others Vrs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in : (1991) 1 SCC 588. It is submitted that such statement has been made in para 12 of the writ application, which has not been denied by the respondents. It has further been stated that the prosecution did not provide any evidence to substantiate the charges despite time granted by the Enquiry Officer. On the other hand petitioner had categorically denied each and every allegation through his statement of defence. However the Enquiry Officer without considering his reply and in absence of any material to substantiate the charges held him guilty. Therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced by non service of second show cause along with copy of the Enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of major punishment.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties. It is apparent that the aforesaid contention raised by the petitioner in para 12 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondents, as aforesaid. The writ petition has to succeed on the limited question of non service of second show cause notice along with the copy of the inquiry report before passing of the impugned order of punishment dated 5.3.2011 in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad and Ors. Vrs. B. Karunakar & ors and Union of India & others Vrs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) and later on followed in other judgments also. Reference may be made to para 26, 28 and 29 of the judgment rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad and Ors. Vrs. B. Karunakar (supra) which are quoted herein below: -