JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the Notification dated 06.11.2008 pertaining to imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement.

(2.) Heard Mr. Nilendu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, learned A.A.G. appearing for the Respondent-State.

(3.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ petition is that initially the petitioner was appointed, as a Junior Engineer in the year 1971. Subsequently, in course of time, he was promoted to the post of the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer. When the deputation of Ms. Salesta Barla, Typist was cancelled, the said Ms. Salesta Barla in collusion with Md. Kamar Mahmood, the Executive Engineer, Planning and Monitoring Division, Ranchi has hatched up a conspiracy to rope in the petitioner. Accordingly, she lodged a complaint before the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Ranchi on 22.03.2002 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has been averred that since the petitioner being the Controlling Officer of Md. Kamar Mahmood asked him to show cause with regard to withdrawal of huge amount from the Treasury in gross violation of Rule and the said Md. Kamar Mahmood insisted Ms. Salesta Barla to lodge a fabricated complaint against the petitioner and the explanation was called for from the petitioner on the said allegations. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the said allegations, but, without considering the explanation of the petitioner, a Joint Fact Finding Committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner and the said Committee submitted report only on the basis of the statement of Md. Kamar Mahmood against whom the petitioner reported for initiation of the departmental proceedings and the Joint Committee also did not find the petitioner to be guilty of the allegations. On the basis of the said report, the petitioner was dismissed from the services vide order dated 27.07.2004 and being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4636 of 2004 and this Court vide order dated 20.07.2005 has been pleased to set aside the order of dismissal and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with liberty to the respondents to proceed with the same in accordance with law. Thereafter, the matter was taken up afresh and an enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and basing on the enquiry report and reply to the second show cause vide Notification dated 06.11.2008, punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon the petitioner vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment vide Annexure-10, the petitioner, left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.