BINDESHWARI MANDAL SON OF LATE KISHORI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF LALU POKHAR, NAGTOLA, POST OFFICE Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (C.A.V.) - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order, as contained in Memo No. 1080 dated 2.8.2011, issued by the respondent no. 2, pertaining to dismissal from services and further for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in services on the post on which he was discharging his duties, prior to issuance of the order dated 2.8.2011 along with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed and delineated in the writ application are that the petitioner has joined his services as a Class IV employee under the respondent authorities and was discharging his duties at Latehar in the Primary Health Center, Chakra Nagar and from there he was transferred vide order no. 9 dated 31.07.2007. It has been averred in the writ application that subsequently a fresh order was passed on 26.10.2007, modifying the earlier order dated 31.7.2007, whereby the order of transfer with respect to the petitioner has been modified and he was directed to report of the office of Touring Veterinary Officer, Balumath at Latehar. That in view of the subsequent order dated 26.10.2007, the petitioner was not relieved from his earlier place of posting. However, in compliance to the order dated 26.10.2007 he has given his joining on 2.11.2007, but, the authorities have not accepted his joining, which would be apparent from the joining report dated 2.11.2007 along with the comments of the authorities dated 8.11.2007. It has been submitted that in view of the order dated 2.11.2007, the authorities have made a correspondence to the District Animal Husbandry Officer, who has stated that his joining cannot be accepted without the order of relieving from the earlier place of posting. Thus, the joining of the petitioner was not accepted and in lieu thereof, his salary has also been withheld and the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed, in spite of specific representation made in this regard, and the respondent authorities instead of redressing the grievance of the petitioner, have put the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 4.4.2009, because of the reasons indiscipline and misconduct. A departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner vide memo no. 799 dated 4.4.2009. From perusal of the memo of charge, it is apparent that the charges of the year, 1992 have been alleged against the petitioner, apart from the charges of the year 2005 and 2006, which itself shows that the respondent authorities have taken action against the petitioner instead of redressing his grievances. Although the departmental proceeding has been directed to be initiated vide order dated 4.4.2009 and the inquiry report was already submitted on 31.10.2009, but, no final decision was taken, in spite of the reply to the second show cause notice having been filed by the petitioner on 4.12.2010 and hence he was compelled to file a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 2474 of 2009 and in the said writ petition, an order was passed on 3.8.2011 and in a great haste an antedated order was passed, dismissing the petitioner from services vide order dated 2.8.2011, which is itself clear from the order dated 5.8.2011 in W.P. (S) No. 2474 of 2009 (Annexure-1).

(3.) Per contra Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, repelling the contentions made in the writ application. It has been inter alia, submitted in the counter affidavit, that a departmental proceeding was initiated for eight grievous charges against the petitioner vide departmental order memo no. 799 dated 4.4.2009, in which R.D., A.H., Palamu Division Medininagar and D.A. H.O., Latehar were appointed as the inquiry officer/Conducting Officer and the Representing officer, respectively. For quashing his suspension order and departmental proceeding and releasing the arrears of salary withheld from March, 2009 a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2474 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner before this Court and the department was informed by this Court about it in May, 2009. An enquiry report was submitted by the Conducting Officer (R.D.,A.H., Palamu) vide letter no. 768, dated 31.10.2009 in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner but the charges against the petitioner were proved or not those facts were not mentioned in the said enquiry report. The said enquiry report was returned in original to R.D., A.H., Palamu Division Medininagar (The Conducting Officer) vide departmental letter no. 2331 dated 4.12.2009 and was directed to submit the enquiry report clarifying that charges against the petitioner were proved or not. It has been further submitted that the clear report and comment was submitted by the conducting officer, R.D., A.H., Palamu vide letter no. 900, dated 30.12.2009 in the departmental proceeding. After the proper perusal of that enquiry report and comments of the enquiry report and records available in the department seven charges against eight charges were found proved. For proved seven charges the petitioner was directed vide department letter no. 849 dated 10.4.2010 to submit his second show cause. He was reminded vide letter no. 1331 dated 16.6.2010 and after that he was directed through newspapers. The reply/second show cause, dated 2.12.2010 was found unsatisfactory and the petitioner was dismissed from services vide departmental order memo no. 1080 dated 2.8.2011. That vide departmental memo no. 1090 dated 3.8.2011, the department took a decision that the payment of only subsistence allowance for the suspension period (from 4.4.2009 to 2.8.2011) will be admissible to the petitioner. It has been further submitted that W.P. (S) No. 2474 of 2009, Rabindra Gope and another was disposed of on 5.8.2011 by this Court and the following facts are mentioned in that order:-