PRADEEP KUMAR RAKSHIT, SON OF LATE SOMNATH RAKSHIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE : KUNDHIT, P.O. : KUNDHIT, P.S. : KUNDHIT, DIST : JAMTARA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of 'Certiorari' for quashing the impugned order dated 05.07.2012 (Annexure-9), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, by which petitioner's next five increments have been forfeited with cumulative effect and he will not be entitled for any benefits of A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. and further for issuance of an appropriate direction commanding upon the Respondents to immediately pay the salary and arrears of salary of the petitioner.

(2.) Sans details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application, are that the petitioner was appointed on 23rd Oct., 1991 as an Assistant in Block Office, Narayanpur. It has been further averred that subsequently in 1997, he was transferred to Jamtara division and thereafter, the petitioner was transferred in Head Quarters. Further in the year 2003, the petitioner was transferred to Circle Office, Nala. Further in 2007, he was transferred in Block Development Officer's Office in Narayanpur and subsequently once again on 22nd July, 2009, he was transferred to Circle Office, Nala. When the petitioner was working at Circle Office, Nala, an Office order dated 15.03.2011 vide Memo No. 94 was passed and the petitioner was suspended from the services and by the same Memo, it was ordered to supply 'Prapatra Ka' to the petitioner. The 'Prapatra Ka' contains the charges levelled against the petitioner in which the petitioner was charged that there is a probability of financial irregularities may be due to the petitioner. Further allegation was made of negligence in performance of duty, disobedience of order and charges relating to retired/dead Chowkidar and the District Panchayati Raj Officer was made Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority wrote a letter addressing the Respondent No. 4 to provide his opinion regarding show cause reply filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a detailed reply on 14.11.2011 categorically denying all the charges levelled against him along with the requisite documents. The Respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 11.10.2011 forwarded his opinion to the Enquiry Officer i.e. Respondent No. 3 in which he mentioned that the allegations made against the petitioner are true. Sans considering the detailed show cause reply filed by the petitioner and after perusing the documents and considering the evidences, the Enquiry Officer gave his opinion and found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner made representations before the Respondent No. 2 on 09.09.2011 and further on 24.04.2012. The Enquiry Officer addressed to Respondent No. 4 to forward his view regarding the charges levelled against the petitioner and the same was forwarded vide letter dated 11.10.2011. Vide Memo No. 120 dated 05.05.2012, the petitioner was asked to file second show cause reply within the period of three days else, it will be presumed that the petitioner do not want to say anything and a decision will be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner filed his second show cause reply along with requisite documents on 14.05.2012 clearly denying the charges levelled against him. During the pendency of the writ application being W.P. (S) No. 3631 of 2012, an order was passed by the Respondent No. 2 vacating the suspension order as well as passed the order of punishment of forfeiture of immediate five increments with cumulative effect and he will not be entitled for any benefit of A.C.P. as well as M.A.C.P. The Nazir of the Circle Office deals with the Financial Matters and all the files is under the hand of the Nazir and not under the hand of a Clerk (the petitioner), so the allegation levelled against the petitioner are false and frivolous. Even though the order of suspension has been vacated, no salary is being paid to the petitioner till date. The petitioner has not yet been paid the remaining salary during the period of suspension and the current salary. The petitioner is not liable to be punished for the work performed by the other employees and he has been made scapegoat only to save the senior officials. The petitioner has earlier moved before this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 3631 of 2012, challenging the order of suspension of the petitioner and this Court has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ application, challenging the order of punishment, which has been passed during pendency of the said writ application. 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. Rishikesh Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and M/s. Anup Kr. Agrawal and Anuj Burman, learned J.Cs. to S.C.V appearing for the respondent-State.