2025:JHHC:15557 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 320 of 2020 -- Laxman Ram aged about 62 years Son of Late Ganesh Ram resident of Village Pandeypura P.Ο. Murmua Kalla P.S. Utari Road (Bishrampur), District Palamau .....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medninagar, P.O. and P.S. Medninagar District Palamau. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau P.O. and P.S. Daltanganj, District Palamau. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Palamau P.O. and P.S. Daltanganj, District Palamau. 5. The Circle Officer, Manika P.O. and P.S. Manika District Latehar. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, P. O and P.S Latehar, District- Latehar 7. The land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar, P.O and P.S Latehar, District-Latehar .....Respondents -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner : M/s. Shadab Bin Haque, Nisha Kumari, Advocates For the Resp.-State : A.C to Sr. S.C.-I -- 15/10.06.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order of punishment dated 30.12.2017 (Annexure-9); passed by the 6th Respondent, whereby the Petitioner has been debarred from getting ACP/MACP/Promotion in future. 2025:JHHC:15557 2 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-8 and submits that when the second show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner he replied that the charges have not been proved; inasmuch as, the mutation which has been recommended by this Petitioner, was on the basis of respective orders of the Revenue Courts. Pursuant thereto, the Disciplinary Authority i.e., 3rd Respondent asked a comment from the Presenting Officer i.e., 4th Respondent who vide letter dated 03.08.2016 did not controvert the contention of the Petitioner, but had only suggested that the quantum of punishment is not proportionate. Learned counsel contended that when there was no basis for proving the charge as the same has been accepted by the Presenting Officer and even in the impugned order the recommendation for mutation of respective lands has not been disputed; then there is no question of any punishment. Moreover, even the act of the Presenting Officer in commenting on the quantum of punishment is unheard. Further, the Disciplinary Authority has simply passed the order accepting the recommendation of the 4th Respondent, who was the Presenting Officer; as such, the impugned order is bad in law. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the Petitioner by contending that the appeal preferred by the Petitioner is still pending. He further draws attention of this Court towards counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the appeal is still pending before the Appellate Authority. He further draws attention towards Annexure-B, wherein hearing of appeal has been stayed by the 2nd Respondent; as such, the Petitioner should not have filed the writ application because the appeal is still pending. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and 2025:JHHC:15557 3 the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner and a Memo of charge was framed on 02.03.2012 making allegation of wrong recommendation for mutation and issuance of rent receipt in favour of the respective persons, who are not Raiyat Holders. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer had proved the charges and a second show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner which was replied by him vide Annexure-6 categorically stating therein that the entire allegation of wrong recommendation for mutation and issuance of rent receipt is misconceived in view of the fact that the same has been done pursuant to respective orders of the Revenue Courts. In the said reply, the Petitioner had also given the details of the case number and date of judgments etc. Pursuant to the aforesaid reply, the 3rd Respondent asked for comments upon the reply to the 2nd show-cause notice from the 4th Respondent, who did not disputed the fact that the aforesaid recommendation by the Petitioner was on the basis of several orders of the Revenue Courts. On the contrary; without any jurisdiction he gave his opinion that the Petitioner should be punished looking to the allegation. 6. The order of punishment (Annexure-9), further transpires that the said authority has not applied its mind and simply stated the facts of the case and borrowed the recommendation by the Presenting Officer that the punishment should be commensurate with the charge, but failed to consider the fact that when the basis of charge itself has not been disputed; inasmuch as, the recommendation for mutation was done pursuant to the Revenue Court’s order and was not disputed by either of the officials; then it was accepted by the disciplinary authority to go through the reply to the second show cause notice and understand the facts mentioned therein that the charge of recommendation of wrong mutation was done in view of the Revenue Court’s order; however, instead of reading and understanding the 2025:JHHC:15557 4 reply to the second show cause; he simply passed an order as per the recommendation of 4th Respondent. For brevity, the relevant part of Annexure-9 is quoted hereunder: “ उप - - प , प 502/jk0, - 03.08.2016 , प प प earO; earO; उ , प " प प 1908 - 87 varxZr प “ mDr ds , उ प Quantum of Punishment प ugha उप – - प , प -502/jk0 - 03.08.2016 , प प उ प fuEu उ :- 1. प / प / प उप प प उप , प -826/ , - 30/12/2017 प :- , , lwpukFkZ “ 7. Another interesting aspect of the matter is that the Petitioner had challenged this order before the Appellate Authority, who is the 2nd Respondent and he also had committed the same mistake; inasmuch as, on the recommendation of the 3rd Respondent to stay the impugned order; he stayed the entire proceeding and four years have lapsed after passing of the stay order and there is no one to look after that appeal and here the State Counsel is contending that the appeal is pending. It is very unfortunate that on the one hand; the proceeding of appeal is stayed and the State counsel is opposing the writ petition due to pendency of appeal that also on the recommendation of Subordinate Officer. As a matter of fact, this is a peculiar case in which none of the authorities have applied its mind in passing the order and the law is well 2025:JHHC:15557 5 settled that every authority, whether it is Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority has to apply its mind and give reasons for passing any order. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the instant writ application stands allowed. Accordingly, the order of punishment dated 30.12.2017 (Annexure-9), passed by the 6th Respondent, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The 6th Respondent is directed to instruct his subordinate to place the entire file before him, so that the same may be verified and appropriate calculation for payment of ACP/MACP/Promotion shall be considered and necessary order be passed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that the monetary benefits of ACP /MACP, if any, shall be paid within a further period of 4 weeks, failing which, the Respondents would also be liable for paying interest to the Petitioner @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. 9. Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jk AFR