PARITOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has prayed for quashing the impugned order contained in Annexure 5 dated 19.12.1996 imposing penalties on him.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that one of the punishments being major one, the said order could not have been passed without supplying a copy of the enquiry report. It was further submitted that in fact no enquiry was held at all Petitioner was served with a charge -sheet, inter alia, to the effect that during 1993 -94 when he was posted as Assistant Engineer in Konar Canal Sub -Division No. II, Bagodar, there were several consecutive thefts, but inspite of information, he did not take proper steps causing loss to Government. He was charged for dereliction of duty and causing loss to Government amounting to serious misconduct. He was put under suspension. He replied to the said charges. As the proceeding was not completed within a reasonable time, he filed writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2810 of 1995 (R) which was disposed of by order dated 19.9.1996 with a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry proceeding within three months.

(3.) 2001 (2) PLJR 622, was relied on: 11. Even though the corresponding entry in the CCA Rules [entry (iii) of Rule 49] is somewhat different from entry (v) in the Punjab Rules (supra), following the ratio of the decision in Kulwant Singh Gills case it would follow that where the annual increments are withheld with cumulative effect the result will be that pay of the delinquent would stand reduced to the lower stage in the time scale of pay making the penalty of withholding of increments a major one.