SANJAY KUMAR TIWARY Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved of the penalty order dated 17.10.2014 and the appellate order dated 29.12.2015.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed on 14.10.1986 to the post of Junior Accounts Clerk. While posted as Accounts Clerk under Road Division, Deoghar he was served the order of transfer dated 12.02.2009 and he was relieved on 14.02.2009 for joining at his transferred post at Hazaribagh. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him by serving a charge memo dated 22.07.2010 in Prapatra 'K'. The charge framed against the petitioner is, that in disobedience of the government order he did not handover complete charge on account of which work under Finance and Audit Divisions suffered. The enquiring officer submitted a report on 20.08.2010 which has formed foundation for the penalty order dated 25.02.2011. This order was affirmed by the appellate authority by an order dated 11.02.2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1478 of 2013, the writ petition was allowed by an order dated 18.11.2013 with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner from the stage of service of the second show cause notice. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.04.2014 to which he submitted his reply on 19.05.2014. The disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of 'Censor' to the petitioner vide order dated 17.10.2014. By the said order the petitioner was also denied full salary and allowances except subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. This order has been affirmed by the appellate authority by rejecting the appeal on 29.12.2015.

(3.) Contending that the findings recorded by the departmental authorities while inflicting punishment upon the petitioner are contrary to their own stand as reflected in letter dated 20.01.2011, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case against the petitioner is based on "no evidence". Referring to the Memorandum of Appeal dated 13.04.2015 filed by the petitioner challenging the penalty order dated 17.10.2014 it is contended that the appellate order discloses complete non-application of mind in as much as the appellate authority has failed to consider the specific plea taken by the petitioner for challenging the penalty order dated 17.10.2014.