JAI PRAKASH, SON OF LATE KESHAV PRASAD, RESIDENT OF Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, PROJECT BHAWAN, P.O. AND P.S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide Annexure-10 to the writ application, and for direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits after setting aside the order of dismissal.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner while continuing in services on the post of Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, charge sheet was served by the Deputy Secretary on 16.01.2008 and the departmental proceeding was initiated. The petitioner filed his show cause reply on 05.04.2010. In the departmental enquiry, the presenting officer submitted his report after detailed enquiry to the enquiry officer. In the report of the presenting officer, petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges. Vide Annexure-5 to the writ application, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. In pursuance to the second show cause notice the petitioner filed his reply on 23.11.2011 denying all the charges against him, while the petitioner was serving as an Engineer in2 Chief in the Rural Works Department another charge was also levelled against him for the acts done while he was serving as an in-charge Superintending Engineer in the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the charge sheet was served by the Deputy Secretary on 01.03.2008 vide memo no.1576(S) dated 01.03.2008. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner filed show cause reply on 14.05.2008. In the said enquiry, the enquiry officer filed his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner submitted his second show cause reply on 23.11.2011 denying all the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority by amalgamating all the charges dated 18.01.2008 under memo no.400(s) and the charges dated 01.03.2008 vide memo no.1576(s) passed the order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from the services. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order of punishment vide Annexure-10, the petitioner being constrained has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order vide Annexure-10 to the writ application, has strenuously urged before this Court that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents without taking into consideration 30 years of unblemished service career. Moreover, the work of the petitioner has been wholly appreciated by this Court as per Annexure-1 of the rejoinder, which has been filed in reply to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the presenting officer after going through the records has clearly exonerated the petitioner but the enquiry officer without delving into the report of the presenting officer in a very cursory manner has found the petitioner guilty of the charges, therefore, the report of the enquiry officer is perverse one so as to call for any such extreme punishment like dismissal from services. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the charges it would appear that the charges are not so grave and serious so as to entail extreme punishment of dismissal from services. Moreover, there has no allegation of any pecuniary loss, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as found place in the charge. Therefore, in the fact and circumstances of the case the impugned order of punishment appears to be harsh, disproportionate so as to prick the conscience of this Honourable Court.