VIRENDRA KUMAR OJHA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the relief sought for in the aforesaid writ petitions are identical, with the consent of the respective counsels, all the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment.

(2.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 23.08.2010 (in W.P.(S) No.3124/2011, W.P.(S) No.3125/2011 and W.P.(S) No.3132/2011) and 24.08.2010 (in W.P.(S) No.3126/2011) and 25.08.2010 (in W.P.(S) No.3134/2011) issued under the signature of respondent no.4, pertaining to infliction of punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect, no payment of salary for the period of suspension and for posting in the non works post for next three years and the petitioners have further prayed for quashing of the consequential order of posting dated 07.09.2010 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the petitioners have been posted as punishment on the non works post; and the petitioners have further prayed for quashing the order dated 24.12011 (in W.P.(S) No.3124/2011, W.P.(S) No.3126/2011, W.P.(S) No.3132/2011 and W.P.(S) No.3134/2011) and 29.02012 (in W.P.(S) No.3125/2011) passed by the appellate authority thereby modifying the impugned order of punishment upholding the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and no payment of salary for the period of suspension.

(3.) The short facts, as disclosed in the writ applications, is that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineer. During the year 2006-07, while they were continuing in service in Road Construction Division, they were informed to be put under suspension under Rule 3A(1) of Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 and proceeded departmentally for the alleged charges as contained therein and the order has been passed vide Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code and the headquarters of the petitioners was fixed at Road Construction Headquarters at Ranchi. In the said order, it was specified that a charge sheet shall be issued to the petitioners separately. After about one year charge sheet dated 31.10.2009 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petitions was served upon the petitioners by respondent no.3 where in Form-K it was alleged that: