NARSINGH JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 3/Arop606/2004 No. 84, dated 18.5.2004 as contained in Annexure -12 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the service with immediate effect by way of punishment awarded in the departmental inquiry. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 3100, dated 27.8.2004, as contained in Annexure -

(2.) THE petitioner 'scase is that he was appointed in the year 1980 on the post of Assistant by Office Order No. 214, dated 10.6.1980 after following the due procedure for appointment. Thereafter his service book was opened and his date of birth was recorded as 2.1.1948. The petitioner, accordingly, has to retire on superannuation in January 2006. The petitioner 's case is that earlier he was in the service of the Border Security Force, 103 Battalion where he had joined in 1971. The petitioner thereafter had joined 210 Auxiliary Battalion, Border Security Force during the period of India -Bangladesh War. After the war between India Bangladesh ended, 210 Auxiliary Battalion was dismantled and the petitioner, alongwith others, was retrenched with a certificate of appreciation. According to the petitioner, his date of birth was recorded in the service records of Border Security Force and on that basis his date of birth was recorded when he joined the State service in the year 1980. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the fag end of his service a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by serving a chargesheed containing article of charges, by Memo No. 4254, dated 20.9.2003. The chargesheet contained as many as three articles of charges. The petitioner had faced inquiry. He has submitted his written explanation and on inquiry the two articles of charges could not be proved. However, the charge No. 3 was found proved by the inquiry officer. Charge No. 3 runs thus:

(3.) DR . M.K. Laik, learned senior Standing Counsel No. 1 submitted that the impugned order, Annexure -12 is mere a communication of the order passed by the competent authority and in fact that is not the order passed by the issuing authority. Learned Counsel submitted that though it has not been specifically mentioned, yet, in fact, the copy of the inquiry report was furnished and adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner. Dr. Laik submitted that there is absolutely no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order, as contained in Annexures -12 and 13, and the same are sound and valid orders.