RAJA RAM MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 01.12.2011, passed in memo no. 3356, by the Principal Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer related Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

(2.) Bereft on unnecessary details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application in brief is that while the petitioner was posted as Block Supply Officer (B.S.O)-cum-Marketing Officer (M.O.), on the basis of a complaint, lodged by the women self help group under the Pratappur Block (in short S.H.G) regarding undue demand by the petitioner to grant P.D.S. license, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide office order dated 23.11.2010 and thereafter, the charges were framed against the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his written explanation. The matter was enquired into by the inquiry officer and basing on the report of the inquiry officer, the impugned order of punishment dated 01.12.2011 been passed, containing two punishment:-

(3.) Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order of punishment is fragile with infirmities. Since the copy of inquiry report not been supplied with infliction of the punishment, which materially affected the disciplinary proceeding because of non-supply of the inquiry report, the petitioner was deprived to put forth his defence against the findings of Enquiry Officer. But in the instant case there been non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report, which vitiated the whole proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the punishment, which been passed vide Annexure-9 to the writ application is a major punishment so that the second show notice ought to have been issued, but in the instant case, the same not been issued to the petitioner which is another infirmity, which materially affected the disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner have not been proved, but only on the basis of conjecture and surmises and on the basis of ipse dixit the punishment been imposed and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. During the pendency of writ application, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation.