RAJIV RANJAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the orders dated 06.09.2017 (Annexure-6) and 23.10.2017 (Annexure-8), issued under the signature of respondent No. 2, whereby the grant of MACP w.e.f. 003.2014, as said to be irregular, has been withdrawn and order of recovery of the differential amount from the salary of petitioner in 12 instalments has been passed.

(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner joined as a Clerk in the Primary Teachers' Education College, Rahela, Palamau on 02.01994 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-30-1800.00. Subsequently, he was transferred to different places and finally, from April, 2016 to till date, the petitioner is posted at Subdivisional Office, Palamau-cum-Garhwa-cum-Latehar. When the petitioner was posted from June, 2012 to March, 2016, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 22.01.2013 by respondent No. 4 on the ground that petitioner failed to show his ability in making fast disposal with regard to payment of GPF of one Prabhu Ram. A summary proceeding was drawn against the petitioner and finally on 18.02013, petitioner was awarded with "Censure" and two increments in salary without cumulative effect was withheld. It is the further case of the petitioner that his services were also confirmed vide order dated 26.05.2014 w.e.f. 02.01997. On 29.05.2014, the petitioner was granted benefits of 1st ACP w.e.f. 02.02006 and further was granted 2nd MACP w.e.f. 02.02014. Surprisingly, on 06.09.2017 without seeking any explanation or show-cause from the petitioner, an order was passed by the respondent No. 4 withdrawing the benefits of 2nd MACP given to the petitioner w.e.f. 02.02014, said to be irregular and it was also decided to recover the difference of amount. In response to the said recovery order, the petitioner preferred representation dated 20.09.2017, mentioning therein that the MACP granted to the petitioner was fully justified and the order of recovery is not in consonance with the Rules and even the effect of Censure is only for a year and as such, the order should be reconsidered as the petitioner was rightly given the benefits of 2nd MACP. However, when the respondents did not pay any heed to the said representation, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Honourable Court by preferring the instant writ petition for redressal of his grievances.