Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 1096 (JHR)

Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2024-03-13

Rajesh Shankar

body2024
JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of punishment as contained in File no. 143 dated 05.06.2018 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no. 4) whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect and it has also been ordered that no other payment except subsistence allowance will be payable to the petitioner during the suspension period. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order no. 308 dated 27.11.2018 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 05.06.2018 passed by the respondent no.4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently posted as Junior Engineer in Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle, Dumka. In the year 2012, during execution of Deoghar Water Supply Scheme, a departmental proceeding was ordered to be initiated against the petitioner vide office order no. 159 dated 06.08.2012 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand annexing memo of charge dated 19.09.2011 mentioning inter alia the charge of making payment of huge amount to a contractor through claim with regard to excavation, loading, unloading & stacking of boulders and removal of slush & mud from ‘Nandan Lake’ under Deoghar Urban Water Supply Scheme. After conclusion of the said departmental proceeding, he was awarded punishment of reversion to the lowest stage of his sanctioned time-scale of pay for three consecutive years vide Office Order No. 59 dated 20.02.2014 passed by the respondent no. 4. 3. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 subsequently directed the conducting officer vide Office Order no. 111 dated 08.07.2015 to re-conduct the departmental proceeding mentioning that the finding was not in consonance with the stipulation made in Circular No. 14127 dated 26.12.2012 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. Accordingly, the conducting officer made further enquiry and submitted the inquiry report vide letter no. 796 dated 23.10.2015. Thereafter, suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide Office Order No. 200 dated 28.09.2015. 4. Accordingly, the conducting officer made further enquiry and submitted the inquiry report vide letter no. 796 dated 23.10.2015. Thereafter, suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide Office Order No. 200 dated 28.09.2015. 4. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 2249 of 2014 challenging the Office Order No. 59 dated 20.02.2014 passed by the respondent no. 4. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2015 whereby the order dated 20.02.2014 was quashed with a liberty to the respondent authorities to conduct fresh inquiry against the petitioner from the stage of framing of charge and to conclude the same within four months. 5. It is also submitted that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 2249 of 2014, the Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no. 3) initiated fresh departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide Office Order no. 09 dated 20.01.2016 and made the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Sahebganj as Conducting Officer who in turn was directed to summit inquiry report within one month. The conducting officer, vide letter no. 1024 dated 16.05.2016, directed the petitioner to submit his defence statement in response to the memo of charge (Prapatra-Ka) appended with the said letter. The petitioner filed a representation on 15.06.2016 before the conducting officer in place of defence statement raising objection against re-initiation of departmental proceeding on the same charge as mentioned in the old memo of charge. He further pointed out that since pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 2249 of 2014, the earlier Office Order No. 59 dated 20.02.2014 relating to punishment of the petitioner for the same charge was not cancelled by an executive order, a fresh proceeding initiated against him amounted to double jeopardy and violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. The objection raised by the petitioner was however not considered and the conducting officer, vide letter no. 318 dated 25.04.2017, submitted the inquiry report to the respondent no. 4 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no. 4, vide letter no. 2468 dated 29.05.2017, issued second show cause notice to the petitioner which was replied by him vide letter dated 22.08.2017 denying all the allegations levelled against him. 4 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no. 4, vide letter no. 2468 dated 29.05.2017, issued second show cause notice to the petitioner which was replied by him vide letter dated 22.08.2017 denying all the allegations levelled against him. He also demanded 6 (six) records as mentioned in the said letter which could have supported his case regarding innocence, however the respondent no. 4 did not supply the same and vide File no. 143 dated 05.06.2018, arbitrarily passed the following order of punishment : - (i) The previous punishment order as contained in Office Order No. 59 dated 20.02.2014 reducing the petitioner’s pay scale to the lowest stage in the sanctioned time-scale of pay for three consecutive years is cancelled. (ii) A fresh punishment with respect to withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect is imposed upon him. (iii) No payment other than subsistence allowance is payable to him for the suspension period. (iv) Departmental proceedings initiated against him vide Office Order no. 09 read with memo no. 266 dated 20.01.2016 and office order no. 111 read with memo no. 2746 dated 08.07.2015 are concluded. 7. It is also submitted that the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) against the order of punishment dated 05.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4, however without mentioning any specific charge wise reason, the said appeal was mechanically rejected by the Joint Secretary of the said department vide office order no. 308 dated 27.11.2018. 8. On the contrary, learned A.C. to G.A.-IV appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that pursuant to the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2249 of 2014, the respondent no. 3, vide Office Order No. 09 as contained in Memo no. 266 dated 20.01.2016, took a decision to initiate fresh inquiry against the petitioner in terms with rule-55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and thereafter the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Sahebganj was appointed as the Inquiry Officer while the Section Officer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Ranchi was appointed as Presenting Officer. The inquiry officer thereafter, vide letter no. 1024 dated 16.05.2016, letter no. 1164 dated 01.06.2016 and letter no. The inquiry officer thereafter, vide letter no. 1024 dated 16.05.2016, letter no. 1164 dated 01.06.2016 and letter no. 1215 dated 06.06.2016, directed the petitioner to file a written reply and to appear before him and finally the last reminder was issued vide letter no. 1327 dated 17.06.2016, however no reply was submitted by the petitioner till 15.06.2016. 9. It is further submitted that the conducting officer submitted the inquiry report vide letter no. 318 dated 25.04.2017 mentioning that all the charges framed against the petitioner were found proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter no. 2468 dated 29.05.2017 calling upon him to submit reply within a period of 15 days. The petitioner replied the same vide letter dated 22.08.2017, however he did not state a single word with regard to his defence. Thereafter, the impugned order as contained in File no. 143 dated 05.06.2018 was passed by the respondent no. 4 whereby the petitioner was imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect with further order that no other payment except subsistence allowance was payable to him for the suspension period. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority without bringing on record any new ground and resultantly the said appeal was dismissed. 10. It is also submitted that the petitioner was given enough time and sufficient opportunity to prove his innocence before passing the impugned orders. The reply to show cause notice filed by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and hence the departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The conducting officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and subsequently the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice to him. After duly considering the reply filed by him, the impugned order of punishment was passed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 14.10.2015 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) no. After duly considering the reply filed by him, the impugned order of punishment was passed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 14.10.2015 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) no. 2249 of 2014, the respondent authorities were given liberty to conduct fresh inquiry against the petitioner from the stage of framing of charge and the inquiry was directed to be concluded within four months from the date of receipt of the said order, however neither any fresh charge was framed for conducting fresh inquiry nor the same was completed within four months. Thus, the impugned order of punishment as contained in office order dated 05.06.2018 was not passed in consonance with the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 2249 of 2014 and as such on this score alone, the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 is liable to be set aside. 13. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the memo of charge (Prapatra- Ka) served to the petitioner subsequent to the order dated 14.10.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2249 of 2014, on perusal of which it appears that charge was not re-framed in terms with the said order, rather the petitioner was served a copy of the old memo of charge dated 19.09.2011. That apart, pursuant to direction issued in the said writ petition, the inquiry was required to be mandatorily completed within four months from the receipt of the said order. It however transpires that the notice for conducting fresh inquiry along with memo of charge was served to the petitioner by the conducting officer on 16.05.2016 i.e., after more than seven months. 14. This Court is of the view that since the Office Order No. 59 dated 20.02.2014 reverting the petitioner to the lowest stage of his sanctioned time-scale of pay for three consecutive years was quashed by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2249 of 2014 with liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh inquiry from the stage of framing of charge as well as to conclude the same within four months from the date of receipt of the order, the said order was not followed by the respondent authorities that too within the stipulated time period. Hence, the order of punishment passed by the respondent no. 4 is liable to be set aside. 15. The next limb of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inquiry officer in his letter no. 318 dated 25.04.2017, had mentioned that the petitioner was asked to remain physically present before him on 29.06.2016 vide letter no. 1327 dated 17.06.2016 and to place his defence, however no such letter was received by the petitioner. As such, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 16. The said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit by bringing on record any contrary evidence. 17. Thus, I am of the considered view that the observation of the inquiry officer made in letter dated 25.04.2017 that the petitioner was not cooperating with the inquiry, does not appear to be correct. Moreover, the inquiry report submitted against the petitioner was merely based on the available documents without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is not tenable in law. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of punishment as contained in File No. 143 dated 05.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4 to the extent of inflicting punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect upon the petitioner with further order that no other payment except subsistence allowance would be payable to him during the suspension period, is set aside. Further, the order no. 308 dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Joint Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Ranchi as the appellate authority is also set aside. This Court does not intend to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority as the respondents have already disclosed their mind and re-hearing of the matter will be an empty formality. Moreover, the respondents have failed to adhere to the timeline fixed vide order dated 14.10.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2249 of 2014 for completing the inquiry and now more than 10 years have already passed from the date of issuance of the original memo of charge to the petitioner. 19. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with aforesaid observation.