GOPI RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by respondent no.2 in departmental proceeding wherein the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement by the disciplinary authority and for direction to respondents for reinstatement in services with consequential benefits.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Clerk-cum-Typist in the year 1990 and was posted at Circle Office, Hariharganj District -Palamau, Jharkhand. In the year 1994, the services were confirmed by the competent authority. While the petitioner was posted at Latehar as an Assistant Clerk, he was placed under suspension by the respondent no.2 vide memo dated 05.11.2009 and he was transferred to Mahuwadand Block and his Head Quarter fixed at Mahuwadand Block. During suspension period he was not paid suspension allowances, the petitioner filed several representations but those representations failed on deaf ears. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice in the year 2010 through his Advocate thereafter, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by respondent no.2 and the inquiry officer was appointed and Land Acquisition Officer, Latehar was appointed as the inquiry officer vide memo dated 22.12.2010 and the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him. The respondent no.2 directed the Civil Surgeon -cum - Chief Medical Officer, Latehar to conduct Medical Examination of the petitioner and to submit Medical Examination report vide letter dated 05.05.2011(Annexure -15) to the writ application and the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 20.05.2011 and got himself examined by the Medical Board after examination declared him fit for the job. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 issued 2nd show cause notice dated 25.06.2011 annexing for reply as evident from Annexure -17 to the writ application and the petitioner replied the 2nd show cause notice vide Annexure -18 to the writ application. The respondent no.2 passed an order dated 20.10.2011 of compulsory retirement to the petitioner with immediate effect vide memo no.582 dated 21.10.2011 as evident from Annexure -19 to the writ application.

(3.) Mr. Chandra Shekher Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent no.2 is without jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of the Jharkhand Service Rules 74(a) since the petitioner has not completed 25 years of his service or not attained the age of 50 years as per Rule 74(a) of the Jharkhand Service Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 2 failed to appreciate that the gravamen of the charges against the petitioner was that he misbehaved with his superior officer i.e. respondent no.3 is simply based on no evidence and the petitioner has been made scape - goat in connivance with official who are inimical to petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents are violatives of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300 -A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the inquiry officer after getting the reply of the show cause, has directly submitted inquiry report dated 09.04.2011 to the respondent no.2 without taking any evidences of the complainant and eye witness of the incidents. Therefore, the petitioner has been grossly prejudiced by the act of the respondents and there has been breach of Principle of natural justice. On perusal of the inquiry report, nowhere it has been stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner is proved and the respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2011 clearly mentioned that all charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved in the enquiry proceeding and the impugned order shows the whimsical attitude of the respondent no.2.