SUBHASH CHANDRA SAHU SON OF LATE MAHABIR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAHNA, P.O. AND P.S. RATU, DISTRICT RANCHI, JHARKHAND Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 03.01.2014 (Annexure-8) passed under Rule 2 (VIII), Bihar-Orissa Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1935 and for quashing of the order dated 29.07.2015 (Annexure-10) passed on appeal by the Honourable High Court in Administrative Side preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts as emanated from the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner while posted as Bench Clerk in the court of learned District Judge-XII-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I. (A.H.D.), Ranchi. On 16.01.2012, the judgment was pronounced by the Presiding Officer in Case No. RC/52- A/1996 and it is alleged that the petitioner demanded money from the accused persons for supply of the free copy of judgment. It is further stated in the writ petition that A.W.-5, who happens to be photo journalist of Dainik Bhaskar, daily news paper, snapped some photographs and published on the front page of the aforesaid daily news paper, depicting P.W.-2 and P.W.-6 giving currency notes to the petitioner, who received the currency notes as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. By virtue on the order of learned Judicial Commissioner, Civil Court, Ranchi, the Registrar, Civil Court, Ranchi conducted the preliminary inquiry and examined five witnesses and the copies of the deposition of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application and after recording the statement of the witnesses the Registrar, Civil Court, Ranchi submitted his report to the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the report of the Registrar, Civil Court, Ranchi has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a Departmental Inquiry no.2/12 was initiated by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 25.01.2012 and learned District Judge no. XVI-cum-Special Judge-I, C.B.I. (A.H.D Scam), Ranchi was entrusted to conduct the inquiry and Registrar, Civil Court, Ranchi was appointed Presenting Officer and charge was framed against the petitioner and necessary papers were supplied to the petitioner. On receipt of the charges, the petitioner submitted his show cause by denying the allegations levelled against him. During the pendency of the departmental proceeding, the inquiry officer was transferred and new incumbent was entrusted to hold the inquiry. After examination of witnesses, it was found, none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Administration supported the charge except P.W.-5, photo journalist and inquiry officer also did not consider the evidence of P.W.-5 to be trustworthy and submitted his report on 01.05.2013, holding the petitioner not guilty as per Annexure-6 to the writ application and the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi who is the disciplinary authority as per the Rule 54 Bihar Civil Court, Staff (Class-III and Class-IV) Rules, 1992, disagreed/differed with the report and by order dated 18.11.2013, issued show cause notice to the petitioner, asking him to submit his reply and in pursuance to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply. The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the show cause reply and passed the order of dismissal from services vide Annexure-8 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his departmental appeal on 29.01.2014, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2015 vide Annexure-10 to the writ application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of punishment of the dismissal from services, being affirmed by the appellate authority, the petitioner left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority being affirmed by the appellate authority suffers from illegality being not consistent with the material facts of the case although the disciplinary authority has jurisdiction to agree or to disagree with the findings of the inquiry officer, but in the case in hand, the report of the inquiry officer which was based on the materials available on the records has not been accepted by the disciplinary authority not on any justifiable grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the witnesses examined during course of inquiry did not support the charge in the departmental inquiry except the photo journalist, P.W.-5 of the Dainik Bhaskar whose evidence could not be described as impeachable and trustworthy so as to bring home the charge against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits charge which have been levellled against the petitioner does not specify the place and the time of misconduct nor from whom demand of illegal gratification has been mentioned in the charge. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge which was levelled against the petitioner was replete with lack of sufficient particularity. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the findings of the disciplinary authority is based on mere probabilities and the charge of illegal gratification was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt. But the finding arrived by the disciplinary authority is based on mere suspicion and conjectures which is against the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 in the case of Union of India And Others Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar and also reported in AIR 1964 SC 364 in the case of Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before infliction of punishment, no notice on proposed punishment was made thereby the petitioner has been denied the opportunity of being heard. Apart from the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is harsh, disproportionate and excessive to the alleged charges so as to call for interference by this Court.