SHASHI KANT SINGH SON OF LATE RAM NARESH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SADOKHAR VIA CHENARI DISTRICT ROHTAS (BIHAR) A/P KUMARDHUBI STATION ROAD SARORA PAHARI P.O. KUMARDHUBI P.S. CHIRKUNDA DISTRICT DHANBAD Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 04.04.2009, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Department of Animal husbandary and Fisheries wherein, following punishments have been imposed:-

(2.) Sans details, the facts, as disclosed and delineated in the writ petition in a nutshell is that the petitioner is the permanent employee under the respondent and he is posted as Clerk. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner was posted as Clerk at Chatra in the year 2002 in the Office of veterinary Surgeon at Chatra the respondent no. 8 and his posting has been made by way of transfer, the letter issued by respondent no.7 contained in memo No. 333 dated 21.5.2002. It has been further averred that the petitioner being posted as Clerk, he had to deal with accounts of the office and it is pertinent to mention that since he was in charge of the accounts he followed the norms rules and procedure with regard to the accounts in the office. It has been further averred that the respondent no. 8 on various occasions directed the petitioner to pay the salary in cash to other employees and to deal the accounts not strictly within rules to which the petitioner could not be agree as the same may occur future accounts problem. It has been further submitted that the respondent no. 8, thereafter took up the entire accounts work of the office in his hand and get it done by Class IV employee of the office for the year 2004. It has been further stated that the respondent no. 7 issued a letter contained in letter No. 394 dated 10.6.04 to the respondent No. 8 and has complained to him that the accounts details for the year 2004 is incorrect and defective and has also directed him to get the accounts work done only by the office employees. It has been further stated that the Respondent No. 8 however continued to get done the accounts work by outsider which occurred various irregularities in accounts details. It has been further averred that the respondent No. 5 issued a letter to the respondent No. 8, whereby the respondent No. 8 has been directed to enquire into the accounts as also with regard to the negligence of the petitioner and the charges made against the petitioner by Sri Nasiruddin Ansari former Veterinary Surgeon, Chatra. It has been further submitted that the Respondent No. 8 issued a letter contained in letter No. 23 dated 2.3.06 to the respondent No. 5, whereby the respondent No. 8 has confirmed the audit clearance of the accounts for the year 2003-04 and has stated that the petitioner is innocent. It has been further stated that the respondent No. 8 has issued another letter being letter No. 23 dated 10.3.06 to the respondent No. 5 to the similar effect wherein it is mentioned that, the details of account, for the year 2003-04 is correct as per the audit as such the petitioner is innocent and that a same and identical letter has been send under the certificate of posting. It has been further averred that the respondent No. 3 issued a letter contained in letter No. 884, dated 27.4.06 to the respondent No. 8 whereby he has been directed to report as to whether both the letters has been issued by him or not. It has been further stated that the Respondent No. 8 thereafter issued two letters one being letter No. 59 dated 15.5.06 and another being letter No. 52 dated 15.5.06 and he has mentioned two different statements as in letter No. 52 it has clearly been mentioned that both the letters being memo No. 23 dated 2.3.06 as well as 10.3.06 has been issued by him and the same bears his signature, on the other in letter No. 59 it has been stated that both the letters have not been issued by him and the same has been issued by his forged signature. It has been further averred that since the respondent No. 8 did not allow the petitioner to deal with the accounts of the office and Dr. Nasiruddin Ansari the previous veterinary Surgeon as well as Sri R. Choudhary continued to get the accounts work done by unauthorized persons due to extraneous consideration therefore the respondent No. 7 issued a letter again on 7.7.06 vide letter No. 610 whereby the respondent No. 8 has been instructed to get the accounts work done by the clerk of the office. It has been further averred that he has been rendering his services regularly, however, the respondent No. 8 used to get the accounts work done by unauthorized person. It has been further stated that the respondent No. 8 has verified the services of the petitioner for the year March 2006 to April 2006 and has certified the same to be satisfactorily. It has been further submitted that the Respondent No. 8 has issued a letter contained in letter No. 96 dated 28.7.06 to the respondent No. 7 whereby the respondent No. 7 has been informed that the salary of the petitioner has been made for the period April 2006 to June 2006 and the period shown as absent shall be made after approval of his leave. It has been further averred that the salary to the employee in the office for the period of Oct. 2006 and Dec. 2006 has been made by cash payment in contravention of the letter No. 1371/F dated 22.5.06 issued by the Finance Department and the fund with regard to uniform has been withdrawn though no uniform was supplied to the employees, as such the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No. 8 for taking appropriate action into the same. It has been further averred that the respondent No. 3 issued an order contained in memo No. 1570 dated 28.6.07 whereby the petitioner has been informed that in respect of the charges referred in enclosure Ka a departmental proceeding has been started against him and he has been informed that the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as enquiry officer for the said enquiry and the respondent No. 6 has been appointed as presenting officer in the said enquiry and charges as referred in the memo of charge is that (i) he has disobeyed the order of his controlling authority (ii) he remains absent/on authorised leave as apparent from the letter No. 73 dated 31.1.06 (iii) he is habituated to disobey his controlling authority and disobey his order and he has made forged signature on letter No. 23 dated 2.3.06. It has been further stated that the petitioner pursuant to the order contained in memo No. 1570, submitted his explanation before the enquiry officer on 17.7.07 and he has submitted that, there is no specification of date and the specification of order for which the charges has been made against him and he also submitted that his services has been found to be satisfactory as recorded by the controlling officer himself on 18.8.06 as such the allegation is not correct and he has further stated that the allegation of making forged signature is baseless as the controlling officer cum competent authority and maker of signature has stated vide his Letter No. 52 that the signature bore on the letter No. 23 is genuine and under his signature. It has been further stated that the respondent No. 3 issued a letter vide letter No. 1711 dated 11.7.07 to the respondent No. 4 whereby he has been directed to conduct enquiry. It has been further stated that the respondent No. 4, the enquiry officer issued a letter No. 709 as contained in memo No. 709 dated 13.7.07 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner has been directed to submit his written statement, evidence and defence before the respondent No. 6. It has been further averred that the enquiry in respect of the forged signature has been conducted by the respondent No. 5 and he has submitted his enquiry report wherein, it has been categorically stated that the Dr. Choudhary has clearly stated that the letter No. 52 has been signed by him and the letter No. 59 has not been signed by him . It has been further submitted that the Respondent No. 4, the enquiry officer has issued a letter of opinion in respect of the enquiry conducted by the respondent No. 5 and opinion arrived by the respondent No. 5 to the respondent No. 3 and this letter clearly shows that the enquiry officer has merely formally consented to the enquiry conducted by the respondent No. 5 as a disciplinary authority and in fact no enquiry has been held in accordance with law. It has been further submitted that the enquiry officer, the respondent No. 4 has issued a letter as contained in letter No. 202 dated 14.2.08 to the respondent No. 2 whereby he has submitted an enquiry report and in respect of the charges referred in column 3 he has stated that it is not possible to establish the charge with regard forged signature. It has been further stated that the respondent No. 3 issued letter vide letter No. 1349 dated 16.7.08 contained in memo No. 2 whereby the petitioner has been informed that the certain part of the memo of charges as charge No. 1, 2, 3 (A) the enquiry Officer has consented to the enquiries of respondent No. 6 and he has been thereafter directed to submit his explanation. It has been further averred that since no enquiry report along with evidences was supplied to him along with the copy of the second show cause as such the petitioner was not able to submit his explanation. It has been further stated that the respondent No. 3 issued an order contained in memo No. 807 dated 4.4.09 whereby a supplementary order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner alleging that the part of charges of memo of charge in column 1, 2, 3 has been proved whereas charge 3 (A) is kept pending till the final order of punishment is passed and the punishment as herein (a) five increments cumulatively withheld (b) withholding the salary for the suspension period (c) withholding of the salary for the period he is found absent. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

(3.) Heard Mr. Anshuman Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sr. S. C. I for the respondent-State.