NITYA NAND SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.7166 of 2012, order and judgment dated 16th October, 2014, whereby the petition preferred by this appellant was partly allowed and the order for recovery passed by the respondents -State has been quashed and set aside, nonetheless, simultaneously, liberty was reserved with the State to initiate departmental action against the appellant for the alleged misconduct of the year 1998.

(2.) It is alleged by the respondents -State that when this appellant was serving as a Junior Engineer at South Kosi Canal Division of Andhrathari, there was some financial irregularity in maintenance of the items at the Stores. For this purpose, directly, orders of recovery for an amount of Rs.14,42,300/ - was issued on 31.10.2012, 17.11.2012 and 28.02.2013. These orders were challenged by the appellant in W.P. (S) No.7166 of 2012 and they have now been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge reserving liberty with the respondents -State to initiate departmental action against this appellant, for which this appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal mainly on the ground that the alleged misconduct is of the year 1998. This appellant (original petitioner) has retired on 31st August, 2009 and, hence, as per Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, if the alleged misconduct has been committed prior to four years of the initiation of the departmental proceedings, the departmental proceedings cannot be initiated against the retired employee.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56 (paragraphs 7 and 10 thereof). On the basis of the said decision, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the liberty reserved by the learned Single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition, also deserves to be quashed and set aside, because, for the alleged misconduct of the year 1998, no enquiry can be conducted in the year 2016 i.e. after approximately 18 years. Otherwise also, for a stale misconduct, no enquiry can be held. Counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) has also relied upon the following decision to substantiate the aforesaid legal contention and in view of all these aspects of the matter, the direction given by learned Single Judge to hold departmental proceedings in the penultimate paragraph of the decision given in W.P. (S) No.7166 of 2012 by a judgment and order dated 16th October, 2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside.