TESHA PRASAD SAH, S/O LATE DUDH NATH SAHU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing part of the order dated 05.03.2011 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide Annexure-6 to the writ application.

(2.) Sans details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Gauze reader in the year 1970 in the office of Hydrological Investigation, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, in due course he was appointed as Accounts Clerk in Rural Development, Special Division, Giridih since 1998. On the basis of the allegation with regard to irregular payment to the President and Secretary of the Labhuk Samittee for an amount of Rs.3,64,076.00 a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner and other persons, who were responsible for the payment of all the aforesaid amount vide Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No.53/2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No.591/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 409, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In pursuance to the criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding the petitioner was asked to submit his reply and accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply. The matter was inquired into and the inquiry officer submitted his report. Basing on the inquiry report, the impugned order of punishment vide Annexre-6 dated 05.03.2011 has been passed which is the subject matter of dispute in this writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment, 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.) Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of punishment vide Annexure-6 has been passed, without supply of the inquiry report and the averments of the petitioner has not been controverted in the counter affidavit. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that non-supply of the inquiry report during pendency of the disciplinary proceeding has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, which has affected the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding. Learned senior counsel further submits that the supply of inquiry report is sine qua non for a fair disciplinary proceeding and in the instant case the same having not been supplied, the very proceeding has been vitiated. In this respect, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported (1993) 4 SCC 727 (Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar and Ors.). It is further submitted that during pendency of the writ application, I.A. No.5600 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner and the same was disposed of vide order dated 15.01.2016 wherein this Court has directed that pendency of the writ application shall not be bar upon the respondents for payment of admissible retirement benefits.