MURARI BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing (i).show cause notice dated 18.08.2015 allegedly issued for indiscipline and arbitrariness in the matter of proceeding on leave; (ii) order dated 06.11.2015, whereby the petitioner was directed to take over the charge of the post of Technical Secretary to Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand and further (iii).show cause notice dated 22.12.2015 for the alleged indiscipline and arbitrariness under the threat of initiation of a departmental proceeding.

(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on 16.06.1987 and by passage of time, the petitioner was granted regular promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) in Road Construction Department. While working as such the petitioner fell ill, hence, he submitted application for grant of casual leave initially for two days and later on submitted application for extension of leave. But the respondents-authorities served a show cause notice dated 18.08.2015 upon the petitioner to submit explanation for the alleged indiscipline and arbitrariness for proceeding on leave and remaining absent till date i.e. 18.08.2015, to which, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 27.08.2015. However, after joining, the respondent no. 3 issued order dated 06.11.2015 whereby direction was issued to the petitioner to take charge of the post of Technical Secretary to Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand. In compliance thereof, the petitioner took over the charge of the post of Technical Secretary to Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department, Ranchi including additional charge of Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department and sent self-assumption charge report letter dated 09.11.2015. Thereafter, the Dy. Secretary vide show cause notice dated 212015 asked the petitioner to submit explanation for the alleged leave and indiscipline and arbitrariness, to which, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 30.12015.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that only in order to frustrate the genuine claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion and in order to overcome the order passed by this Honourable Court in W.P. (S) No. 415 of 2015 wherein it is ordered to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to payment of arrears of salary and other service benefits with allowances legally payable to him on account of his promotion, the respondents had been continuously trying to punish the petitioner. It has further been submitted that Sri Surendra Pandey is junior to him but by virtue of impugned order dated 06.11.2015, he will be compelled to work under him, which is against the policy of Government of Jharkhand dated 25.01.2006. It has further been submitted that vide Notification dated 009.2014, the petitioner was posted on the post of Secretary (Technical) to the Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand with additional charge of Chief Engineer of the said wing and accordingly, he took over charge of those posts on 009.2014. It has further been submitted that after the interim order passed by this Court on 002016, the petitioner has been posted as Chief Engineer I/C, Water Board, Ranchi. But, it is pertinent to mention here that the post of Chief Engineer, Ranchi Jal Parisad, come under the direct control of Sri Arvind Singh, who is presently holding the post of Engineer-in-Chief of the Building Construction Department and admittedly he is junior to the petitioner, which would frustrate the order dated 002016 passed by this Court. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that even in the case of making In charge arrangement of higher posts, seniority, reservation etc must be considered as per letter dated 25.01.2006 issued by the Personnel Administrative, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand. Referring to the judgments rendered in the case of Jaibir Mishra Vs. L.N. Mithila University & Ors as reported in 1987 PLJR 838, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that if an ad-hoc appointment is made senior must get such ad-hoc appointment/promotion. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is well settled principle that notification cannot be amended or replaced by an order and do hors to such settled principle, in the case at hand though vide notification dated 009.2014 the petitioner was posted as Technical Secretary to the Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing with additional charge of the post of Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department but vide order dated 06.10.2015 he was directed to take charge of Technical Secretary to Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department. Hence, such order has no value in the eye of law and notification dated 009.2014 shall prevail whereby the petitioner was made additional charge of Chief Engineer.