MADAN PRASAD PANDIT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter -alia prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure -3) issued by respondent no.3 in the departmental proceeding and for quashing of order dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure -4) issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent no.2).

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as averred in the writ application is that in pursuance to the order dated 12.05.2006 issued by respondent no.3 the petitioner and one Saryu Ram were placed under suspension in relation to an alleged occurrence dated 12.05.2006 at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Warden at Divisional Jail, Koderma. The petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 01.06.2006, which was received by him on 09.09.2006 and the petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges and for revoking the order of suspension and also for conclusion of enquiry. When no order was passed for revocation of suspension order nor any progress was made by the departmental proceeding, the petitioner filed in W.P.(S) No.935 of 2007 for quashing the order of suspension and the said writ petition was disposed of on 05.04.2007 with direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this this order. The order of suspension stood revoked on 30.06.2007 since the departmental proceeding was not concluded, in terms of the order dated 05.04.2007 in W.P.(S) No.935 of 2007 and the petitioner was posted at Divisional Jail, Chatra. The respondent no.3 vide order dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure -3) passed a final order in the departmental proceeding whereby the petitioner was restored back to the initial pay scale of warden and a further order was passed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7273 of 2007 which was disposed of on 04.02.2008 with a direction to respondent no.2 to hear and dispose of the appeal, if any, within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order. The appellate authority vide order dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure -4) affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority (respondent no.3). The petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has approached this Court invoking extra -ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the petitioner was neither given reasonable opportunity of hearing nor supplied with a copy of the inquiry report, impugned order passed in the departmental proceeding is in breach of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges against the petitioner is defective since no list of documents has been mentioned nor supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders are non -speaking and unreasoned and are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner and one Saryu Ram faced the inquiry though Saryu Ram has been imposed minor punishment but the petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as has been extended to Mr. Saryu Ram on the doctrine of parity. In order to buttress, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions on the doctrine of parity as reported in (2003) 1 JLJR 604, (2006) 2 SCC 747 and (2011) 1 JLJR 9.