BIPIN BIHARI MISHRA, SON OF LATE DR. RAMESHWAR MISHRA, POKHARIYA, NEAR LIC OFFICE, P.O. AND P.S. BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Ranchi, dated 01.10.2012 (Annexure-5), pertaining to imposition of punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect and also the order of the appellate authority, dated 17.06.2013 (Annexure-6), affirming the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the said orders.

(2.) The facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, Patna, Bihar. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the petitioner was allocated the cadre of State of Jharkhand. The petitioner while continuing as an Executive Engineer, Building Division, Hazaribag along with the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineers, the Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribag vide letter dated 07.09.2007 requested the petitioner to furnish the "Valuation Report" of the structures, which were to be acquired for the Garhi Dam Project by the Irrigation Department. On receipt of the said details, the petitioner instructed the Assistant Engineer to do the same and, in turn, the Junior Engineer is directed to make physical verification and submit the valuation report and after getting the valuation report, the petitioner forwarded the same to the Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribag. It has been averred that in course of whole exercise of the Valuation process upto payment of compensation, no dispute was brought to the notice of the District Administration and before publication of the award, Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, has also conducted detailed enquiry in the matter, who was satisfied with the entire valuation process and thus, paved way for publication of the Award and accordingly, the entire compensation was paid. The Respondent No. 3 on receipt of a complaint from Mahila Jagriti Manch, Keredari, regarding irregularity committed in valuation process and on receipt thereof, the respondent no. 3 got a detailed enquiry made through the Executive Engineer, as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, Art. of charges have been framed against the petitioner vide Annexure-3/1 and the petitioner was asked to file show cause to the Art. of charges and therefore, after filing of the show cause, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 21.12009 as per Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Thereafter, on 01.10.2012 (Annexure-5), the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Ranchi, imposing punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 17.06.2013 (Annexure-6) has been pleased to confirm the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2016.

(3.) Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 01.10.2012 (Annexure-5) is a non-speaking order and no reasons have been assigned while passing the impugned order and therefore, on that score, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the impugned order of punishment i.e. withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment as has been held by the Honourable Apex Court as reported in 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504 in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, second show cause notice prior to infliction of punishment ought to have been issued to the petitioner. In the instant case, no second show cause notice was issued prior to imposition of the punishment therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner has retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2016, he is entitled for payment of arrears for the aforesaid period of withholding of increment.