PARITOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the entire departmental proceeding as well as Memo No.1262, dated 30.05.2007 (Annexure-11/A to the writ application) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 5) which has been concluded ex parte contrary to the letter and spirit of the order dated 23.03.2006 (Annexure-5), passed in C.W.J.C. No. 781 of 1997 (R) and for direction to the respondents to make payment of cost.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that initially, while the petitioner was continuing as an Assistant Engineer at Patna, vide Memo dated 05.08.1995, issued by the Respondent No. 4, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding on the allegation of dereliction in duty due to which some P.C.C. Tiles and 500 Cubic feet Stone Metal were stolen from the site of construction. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Charge Memo dated 19.08.1995 issued by the Respondent No. 4 as is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In pursuance to the Charge Memo, the Conducting Officer as well as the Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct the enquiry. Against the order of suspension, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 2810 of 1995 (R) before this Court and the same has been disposed of vide order dated 19.09.1996 with a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry within three months and if the enquiry is not completed within the said period, the suspension order passed against the petitioner shall be revoked in service by the appropriate authority (Annexure-3 to the writ application). Vide order dated 19.12.1996, Respondent No. 4 imposed major punishment, such as stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative effects apart from other punishments imposed upon the petitioner (Annexure-4 to the writ application). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 781 of 1997 (R) and this Court vide order dated 23.03.2006 has been pleased to set aside the order of punishment of stoppage of increments vide Memo dated 19.12.1996 and remitted the matter to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi with the observations. The aforesaid order of this Court dated 23.03.2006, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 781 of 1997 (R) was received in the office of the Respondent No. 2 on 05.04.2006 itself. By order dated 11.05.2006, the petitioner was intimated the decision to conduct a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and after receipt of the memo dated 11.05.2006, the petitioner submitted representations on 20.05.2006 and 03.06.2006 before the Conducting officer to supply the Charge Memo with a view to get the departmental proceeding concluded within the time, as specified by the Court vide order dated 23.03.2006, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 781 of 1997 (R). Since the order dated 23.03.2006, passed by the Court was not complied, the petitioner has filed a contempt case bearing Cont. Case (C) No. 712 of 2006. The petitioner was served with Charge Memo vide letter dated 12.12.2006. Thereafter, the ex parte enquiry report dated 18.05.2007 was submitted before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority imposed punishment upon the petitioner, which was issued vide memo dated 30.05.2007 and the petitioner was served with a copy of the show cause dated 14.06.2007. On the basis of the enquiry report, the impugned order of punishment dated 30.05.2007 (Annexure-11/A) has been passed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of punishment dated 30.05.2007, the petitioner left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for mitigation of his grievances.

(3.) Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, learned J.C to S.C. (L&C) for the respondent-State.