BINAY KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF SHANSAR ENCLAVE APARTMENT, FLAT NO. 201, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR D.A.V. KAPIL DEO SCHOOL, KADRU, P.O DORANDA, P.S. ARGORA, DISTRICT RANCHI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ application has been filed praying, inter alia, for quashing appellate order dated 17.10.2012 passed by respondent no. 3, whereby respondent no. 3 upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority-respondent no. 4 and also order dated 06.03.2012 whereby respondent no. 4 imposed punishment of stoppage of increment of salary for six months and further for declaring the inquiry report dated 27.01.2012 with respect to charge no. III not fair and proper.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner initially joined on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1989. While continuing as such vide order 31.08.2010, the petitioner was put under suspension and was asked to submit show cause by respondent no. 4, to which, the petitioner replied vide reply dated 08.09.2010 categorically mentioning therein that he had not received any show cause notice dated 10.08.2010 as mentioned in order dated 31.08.2010. But to the utter surprise, a charge memo dated 15.09.2010 was served upon the petitioner whereas the petitioner had already submitted show cause on 08.09.2010 itself. Basing on the charges, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, in which, the petitioner filed his show cause categorically stating that he never received show notice dated 10.08.2010, therefore, he is not able to file show cause before the concerned respondent and for this he cannot be held guilty. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer concluded the proceeding and exonerated the petitioner from charge no. I and II and held guilty of charge no. III, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Basing on the enquiry report dated 27.01.2012, the disciplinary authority-respondent no. 4 imposed the impugned order of punishment dated 06.03.2012, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was also dismissed vie order dated 17.10.2012.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to impose the impugned punishment of stoppage of six months increments for non-compliance of show cause notice, which was never served upon the petitioner. It has further been submitted that neither the petitioner was given the copy of enquiry report nor opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it would be evident from Annexure A to the counter affidavit that show cause memo dated 10.08.2010 was received by one lady constable, Laxmi Oraon on 13.08.2010 but she had not handed over the said show cause notice to the petitioner till date. It has further been submitted that show cause memo is a personal document and it ought to be served him personally. Besides, that lady constable Laxmi Devi has never been examined by the enquiry officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that out of the three charges, charge no. 1 and 2 has not been proved whereas in charge no. 3, the petitioner has been held guilty without taking into evidence that lady constable, who received the show cause memo in police station, there is no entry regarding receiving of the said show cause nor it was dispatched to the petitioner.