MURARI BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as 'the appellant') being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.12.2016 passed in WP(S) No. 2636 of 2016 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) For the purpose of deciding the instant Letters Patent Appeal, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts. Only relevant fact, which relates to the dispute in question is being narrated here-in-below;

(3.) The senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order of punishment is absolutely bad. He further submits that the punishment of "Censure" could not have been passed against the appellant-writ petitioner as the show cause dated 8.8.2013 itself is absolutely vague. He also submits that nowhere in the said show cause it has been mentioned that the State contemplates to punish the petitioner. He also submits that the tender, which was complained of, later on was cancelled as such, there was no loss to the State exchequer. He further submits that the petitioner had taken into consideration different circulars issued by the State Government and it cannot be said that the petitioner had flouted any of the Rules and thus, he could not be punished by the Department. Senior counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the impugned order of punishment is also bad as the same is un-reasoned one and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge.