SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to quash the impugned Letter bearing No.1232 dtd. 22/11/2024 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby second Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner, asking him to file an appropriate reply so that the Departmental Proceeding can be concluded.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that while in service, the petitioner was served with a Departmental Charge Sheet and thereafter a Departmental Enquiry was initiated. She submits that in the Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated as the Enquiry Officer did not find any of the charges to be proved against the petitioner. She contends that the enquiry report was submitted on 21/6/2022, but the respondents slept over the same and did not take any action. She submits that only after the petitioner filed a representation to take appropriate action in terms of the enquiry report, the respondents issued the impugned Notice dtd. 22/11/2024 to the petitioner, differing with the enquiry report. It is her contention that the Law provides that the Disciplinary Authority can differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but the reasons and the grounds thereof should be communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel argues that the impugned Letter, which is supposed to be the second Show Cause Notice, differing with the enquiry report, does not highlight any ground, based on which the Disciplinary Authority is differing with the enquiry report. She submits that the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31/1/2025, and the proceeding has been converted to one under Rule 43 (c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, but the matter has still not been finally decided and is kept pending, as a result of which the petitioner has not been paid the Gratuity. She submits that the respondents have got no authority and jurisdiction to withhold full Gratuity even during pendency of the proceeding. She lastly submits that necessary documents have not been supplied to the petitioner, which prevented the petitioner to file appropriate reply.