PRASANNA KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the memo No. 258 dated 8.3.2014 whereby a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner for the same charges for which petitioner has already exonerated in earlier departmental enquiry.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year, 1988. It is alleged that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher towards the vacancies reserved for schedule caste category, though the petitioner belongs to OBC category. It then appears that on the same charge petitioner's services earlier terminated by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur in the year, 2011. The above termination order challenged by the petitioner vide W.P.(S) No. 7969 of 2012. The aforesaid writ application allowed vide order dated 24.6.2013 on two grounds: Firstly, the said termination order had been issued without initiating any departmental proceeding, therefore, the same is violative of principle of natural justice. The second ground for allowing the writ application is that issue involved in the departmental proceeding is 23 years old, thus, the raising of such stale issue after lapse of more than two decades is unjustified. It appears that the aforesaid order of this court has not been challenged by the respondents by filing higher Court, rather the same has been implemented by memo No. 489 dated 25. 7. 2013 and the petitioner was reinstated with all consequential benefits including the full back wages. Thereafter the respondents initiated a departmental proceeding vide memo No. 524 dated 30.7.2013 ( Annexure -14) for the same charges. Initiation of the above departmental proceeding challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6415 of 2013. The aforesaid writ application still pending. However, it appears that no interim order passed by this court in the writ application, therefore, the departmental proceeding continued.

(3.) It is worth mentioning that the inquiry officer after considering the relevant materials collected during the departmental proceeding come to the conclusion that the charge nos. 1 and 2 levelled against the petitioner had not been proved, whereas charge No.3 is require to be adjudicated by the court. Accordingly he submitted his inquiry report on 18.12.2013. It appears that no final order passed by the disciplinary authority on the aforesaid inquiry report. It then appears that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 initiated another departmental proceeding on 8.3.2014 for the same charges, against that the present writ application filed.