JITAN KAPRI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 19.07.2011 whereby petitioner has been terminated from services and for quashing order dated 20.09.2008 passed by Enquiry Officer whereby charge nos. 1 to 7 framed against the petitioner have been completely proved and charge no. 9 has been partly proved.

(2.) The facts, giving rise to filing of the present writ application, is that petitioner was appointed on 31.05.1994 in the post of Panchayat Sevak. While continuing as such, charge-sheet containing 9 charges at Prapatra-K was served upon the petitioner mainly on the ground that his service while being In-charge of Matiyani Panchayat was found unsatisfactory and due to that the work under NREGA has been effected. Accordingly, departmental proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner, in which, conducting officer was appointed, who after enquiry submitted his report and basing on such enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order of termination, which is impugned before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has not been given show cause prior to submission of charge-sheet. It has been submitted that neither any information of the enquiry nor enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and without giving any enquiry report or show cause aforesaid charge has been framed, moreover, the documents on the basis of which charge-sheet has been submitted have also not been incorporated by the authority, hence, the impugned order is required to be quashed. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a judgment rendered in the case of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Anr v. Madanlal Tandon as reported in (2015) 8 SCC 461. It has further been submitted that the conducting officer without any evidence and without giving any proper opportunity to defend the charges submitted its report on 20.09.2008 on the basis of which the disciplinary authority issued second show cause, to which, the petitioner replied. But without appreciating the entire facts, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of termination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination was passed without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and without supplying the necessary papers. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Conducting Officer without verifying the relevant documents and only on the basis of surmises and conjectures have come to an erroneous conclusion that charge nos. 1 to 7 levelled against the petitioner is fully proved and charge no. 9 has been partially proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that witnesses examined by the B.D.O were never examined by the Enquiry Officer, hence, for non-examination of the material witness, the impugned order is vulnerable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the conducting officer has violated the Rule 116, 166 and 167 (b) of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules. It has further been submitted that the Block Development Officer in order to save his skin has thrown responsibility upon the petitioner as issuing rice from the store sanction of BDO is essential, which has not been done. On the question of quantum of punishment, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order of termination is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.