ARUN KUMAR, SON OF SRI KAMLA PRASAD SINHA, RESIDENT OF 197/C, VIDYALAYA MARG, ASHOK NAGAR, P.O & P.S Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, initially the petitioner has prayed for quashing of entire departmental proceeding initiated against him, but, when during pendency of the writ application, the departmental proceeding culminated in passing of impugned order of punishment dated 09.03.2011, whereby petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of lowering down of minimum pay-scale, the petitioner challenged the same by way of filing amendment petition being I.A. No. 872 of 2011.

(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner while discharging his duties as District Mining Office, Jamshedpur at the instance of one complainant-Sri Arun Dubey, with the help of some Vigilance Personnel, the petitioner was implicated in a trap case by forcibly handing over an envelope containing some money making an allegation that he demanded Rs. 10,000.00 for issuance of challan. Pursuant thereto, a criminal case being Vigilance Case No. 67 of 2002 for the offence under Sec. 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner, which is still pending. It has submitted that though in the year 2002 no departmental proceeding was initiated but after eight years, the petitioner was served with a charge memo along with order dated 24.09.2010 directing him to appear before the Conducting Officer on 04.10.2010.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court for quashing the entire departmental proceeding on the ground that on the similar set of charges criminal proceeding is pending. However, during pendency of the writ application, even after the request made by the petitioner on 04.10.2010 before the respondents authorities that since the criminal proceeding is pending, the departmental proceeding should await the result of criminal case, no order was passed and departmental proceeding was set in motion, which led to passing of impugned order of punishment dated 09.02011, whereby petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of lowering down of minimum payscale.