STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. PHILBIYUS BARLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was successful in having an order of minor punishment imposed against him invalidated by the learned First Court. The writ petitioner, at the material point of time, was posted as Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Chaibasa Sadar, when a memorandum of charges was issued against him under six heads on the allegations of certain irregularities committed by him in course of his official duty. The date of issue of the memorandum of charges is 04.08.2008. The writ petitioner's reply to the memorandum of charges was considered by the competent authority and enquiry was conducted, in which, the writ petitioner participated. The enquiry report, however, was not given to him and minor punishment in the form of withholding one increment (non-cumulative) and censure were imposed upon him on 5th Aug., 2016.

(2.) The writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India primarily on the ground that as the enquiry report was not supplied to him before imposition of penalty, there was violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, HyderabadOrs. Vs. B. KarunakarOrs, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 was relied upon by the learned Frist Court in allowing the writ petitioner's plea against imposition of penalty.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Rules 24 and 25 of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 to contend that there was appeal provision against an order of imposition of penalty and for that reason the learned First Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition. He has also drawn our attention to certain documents, by which, after imposition of punishment, the writ petitioner had asked for the enquiry report and the same was given to him. This fact goes undisputed.