JAI SINGH BOIPAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that main grievance ventilated in the present petition is that though in the departmental appeal proceedings the order passed by an enquiry officer (Annexure -8 to the memo of the present petition dated 17th of May, 2000) is quashed and set aside by the appellate authority vide Annexure -10 dated 5th of August, 2002 and despite the fact that no criminal proceeding has been concluded against the present petitioner straightway the order of recovery of Rs. 78,364/ - has been passed vide order dated 17th of October, 2000 which is at Annexure -9 to the memo of the present petition, therefore, the present petition has been preferred for quashing and set aside the order at Annexure -8 to the memo of the present petition. This petition is restricted mainly for quashing the Annexure -9 only.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the respondents who has vehemently submitted that because of the lethargic approach, on the part of the present petitioner, a theft was committed of the items worth Rs. 78,364/ - and, therefore, departmental proceedings were initiated against present petitioner in which he was punished vide order at Annexure -8 dated 17th of May, 2000 and two increments of the present petitioner were stopped with all permanent effect and therefore, order was passed at Annexure -9 dated 17th of October, 2000, which is just proper, legal, equitable and inconsonance with the fact and law and therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) FOR the aforesaid facts and reasons and looking to the appellate order, in departmental inquiry at Annexure -10, and looking to the facts that criminal proceedings are also pending against the petitioner, the order passed by respondent no. 3, is hereby quashed and set aside which is dated 17th October, 2000 (Annexure -9 to the memo of the present petition) and liberty is reserved with the respondents to pass necessary order in accordance with law upon conclusion of the departmental proceeding, initiated against the present petitioner and after giving opportunity being heard to the present petitioner.