SHYAM NATH DUBE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs: -

(2.) Brief facts of the case is that a First Information Report being Manika Police Station Case No.23 of 2010 was lodged against the petitioner and 7 others under Ss. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to the First Information Report, investigation was conducted. The Executive Engineer, by letter No.640 dtd. 14/8/2010 directed that the petitioner was not to discharge his duties in view of the First Information Report and authorised the Assistant Engineer, Chandwa to perform his functions. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Engineer on 30/6/2013. After retirement, a memo of charge was issued to the petitioner on 26/3/2014 which was later formalized by Resolution contained in memo No.1505 dtd. 25/6/2014. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. The petitioner was issued a second show cause and he replied to the same on 6/5/2015. Despite the petitioners reply, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of punishment vide memo No.3762 dtd. 21/7/2015 directing deduction of 10% of pension for life. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 19/8/2015, but the same remained undecided, compelling the petitioner to file W.P.(S) No.3640 of 2016, which was disposed with a direction to decide the appeal. However, the appeal was rejected on 18/2/2021. Thus, the petitioner has moved before this Court in this Writ Petition challenging the actions and orders passed by the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no witness was examined and no document was proved as per law by the respondents in the proceeding before the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer held Charge Nos.1, 3 and 4 as proved and returned the finding on Charge Nos. 2 and 5. Replies submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the concerned authority. Learned counsel contended that no definite charge was framed against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner having served for 34 and half years, has not been paid his gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension for no reason at all. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was granted 2 ACPs, but the 3rd MACP, which fell due in the month of August 2009, has not been sanctioned.