PRADIP PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter -alia prayed for quashing of the sanction order dated 31.01.2013 of the learned Advisor of Governor pertaining to sanction of punishment which was communicated to the petitioner vide punishment order dated 20.02.2013 and for quashing of the order of punishment imposed vide memo dated 20.02.2013 (Annexure -5) and for issuance of appropriate writ of direction upon the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion in senior selection grade, Bihar Administrative Service, since juniors to the petitioner have already been promoted in the senior selection grade.

(2.) The factual matrix as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that in pursuance to letter dated 15.03.2010 of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Jharkhand, Ranchi respondent No. 5/Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa vide letter dated 10.04.2010 framed charges against the petitioner, alleging therein, that the petitioner while working as the Circle Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa mutated the tribal land in favour of the people who were not tribals without prior permission. The petitioner on receipt of the same submitted his reply, explaining therein, that there was no violation of Sec. 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in mutation cases of the year 2006 -07 because as per the provisions of law of the mutations, the order of the petitioner in mutation cases are amenable to appeal and the same has been passed by quasi -judicial authority and the same does not create any right over the land. The respondent No. 4 sought opinion of the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa on the explanation of the petitioner and the opinion was forwarded to the respondent authorities accepting the explanation submitted by the petitioner vide letter dated 02.12.2012 Annexure -4 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the punishment of censure withholding of four increments. Being aggrieved by the order of aforesaid punishment, the petitioner, left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has invoked extra -ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been inter -alia submitted in the counter -affidavit that the Deputy Commissioner, West Chaibasa sent a memo of charge, Form -K vide letter dated 10.04.2010, relating to tenure of the circle officer, Sadar Chaibasa. The charges leveled against the petitioner have been mentioned, that two charges have been framed against the petitioner pertaining to violation of rule -46 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and settlement of land which has been obtained by non -tribal people from minor settlee Naresh Devgam which was sold on the basis of fabricated documents by his father Sri Dumbi Devgam on his behalf vide registered sale deed dated 21.11.1963 in violation of Rule 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The petitioner approved mutation of the said land in favour of non -tribal people on the basis of fabricated documents in violation of rule -46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. In this way, it is evident that the petitioner approved mutation of tribal land in favour of non -tribal people in violation of rule 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and in negligence of order issued by the Government from time to time. It shows autocratic behaviour, indiscipline and dereliction of duty on his part which is against the code of conduct of the government servant, because of which show cause was issued, in compliance of which he submitted his explanation dated 24.02.2011 and the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa sought on the explanation. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa opined that explanation of the petitioner was acceptable. It is further submitted that the charges against the petitioner, his explanation and opinion of the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, was examined and reviewed by the department. The fact which become after review: -