PETER TIRKEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.03.2009 issued by respondent No. 2 wherein it has been ordered that except subsistence allowance, no payment of any amount will be admissible to the petitioner for the period of suspension i.e. from 04.02.1996 to 16.08.99 and further punishment equivalent to dismissal has been inflicted upon the petitioner and thereby it has been ordered that payment of pension, gratuity, amount of unutilized earned leave shall not be payable to the petitioner and for commanding the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 18.03.2009 and for payment for entire retiral benefit to the petitioner, by quashing the entire departmental proceeding as initiated against the petitioner.

(2.) Sans details, facts as disclosed in the writ application in a nutshell is that the petitioner while continuing as an accountant had withdrawn excess amount from the treasury, Lohardagga in the district of Lohardagga. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was submitted by the C.B.I. wherein the name of the petitioner stood at serial 1 and Annexure-D to the charge-sheet wherein the name of the witness was listed and the name of the petitioner stood at serial 19. A C.W.J.C. No. 2792 of 1998 (R) was preferred by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to serve a charge-sheet in the departmental proceeding to the petitioner and if they wish to proceed with the same, then conclude the same within six months failing which the suspension will stand revoked. Charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner by the then State of Bihar to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply stating therein that the same charges were being levelled against him for which he has not been sent for trial by C.B.I. and instead he has been made a witness. Thereafter, suspension order against the petitioner was revoked and the petitioner assumed charge in the place of posting. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was allocated the State of Jharkhand. Since the petitioner made several representations to the authority of the department for early disposal/conclusion of the departmental proceeding and also for payment of arrear of due salary for the period of suspension but no heed was paid. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S.) No. 7425 of 2006 which has been disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2006 with a direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of two months. While continuing as accountant, the petitioner retired from service of office of the District Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Palamau. After retirement from services, the impugned order dated 18.03.2009 has been passed against the petitioner.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment and left with no other efficacious, alternative remedy the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.