Jharkhand High Court
Bijay Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3501 of 2014
--------
Bijay Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms &
Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms & Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand
4. Deputy Commissioner, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand
5. Deputy Development Commissioner, District Lohardaga,
Jharkhand
..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, Advocate
---------
13/15.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. The instant application has been preferred by the
petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the
entire departmental proceeding and also the order of
punishment dated 22.8.2013 passed by Respondent No.3;
whereby the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of
forfeiture of one increment sans non-cumulative effect.
3. The facts relevant for disposal of the instant writ
application is that while the petitioner was posted as Block
Development Officer in Kudu block; allegation has been
leveled against him relating to irregularities in the work of
MGNREGA and pursuant to that a charge sheet was issued to
him to which he duly replied and rebut the charges leveled
against him vide his reply dated 22.11.2012. He also sent the
reply to the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga. However, the
punishment has been imposed upon this petitioner by the
impugned order.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy
Commissioner, Lohardaga-Respondent No.4 has fully
exonerated the petitioner from the alleged charges, inasmuch
as, he has given opinion to the Disciplinary Authority that
there was some negligence on the part of the petitioner but
there was no financial irregularity; as such, he has been
warned for his negligence. However, the Disciplinary
Authority ignored the report of the Deputy Commissioner and
merely on suspicion passed the order of punishment.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that no second show-cause notice was
served upon him and the entire proceeding was conducted de
hors the principals of natural justice. Even the report of the
Deputy Commissioner was ignored by the Disciplinary
Authority. He further contended that no reason has been
assigned by the Disciplinary Authority, save and except, that
it is a case of suspicion.
Learned counsel concluded his argument by
submitting that since the petitioner was already warned by
the Deputy Commissioner as such, for one offence two
punishment cannot be imposed.
5. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the
respondent State opposed the prayer of the petitioner and
submits that there is no procedural error in the entire
proceeding and since it is a minor punishment; the
requirement of issuance of second show-cause notice was not
mandatory and the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority is a well-reasoned order.
Learned counsel further submits that the
Disciplinary Authority after discussing the opinion of the
Deputy Commissioner imposed the punishment; as such no
interference is required in this matter.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
looking to the documents annexed with this application and
the averments made in the respective affidavits, admittedly;
the punishment imposed is a minor punishment and as such
no second show cause notice was required before imposing
the punishment.
From the impugned order, it further appears that
the Disciplinary Authority has discussed the opinion of the
Respondent No. 3-the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga and
came to a conclusive finding that the petitioner is guilty of the
charge. It is true that there are several minor penalties which
includes warning also; however, the contention of the
petitioner that he has already been warned by the Deputy
Commissioner is misconceived, inasmuch as, the Deputy
Commissioner was not the Disciplinary Authority.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar Arora
reported in (1997) 3 SCC 72, at page 77 as under:
20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High
Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the
findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers
of appellate court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High
Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it
is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of
non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of
reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no
evidence, and/or the punishment is totally
disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an
employee. There is a catena of judgments of this Court
which had settled the law on this topic and it is not
necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to
refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz.
State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, State of A.P. v. Chitra
Venkata Rao, Corpn. of the City of Nagpur v.
Ramchandra and Nelson Motis v. Union of India."
7. In the instant case also there is no procedural
irregularity and the punishment is a minor punishment of
withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect
which does not appears to be disproportionate and the order
impugned is a well reasoned order as such, no interference is
required.
8. Consequently, the instant writ application stands
dismissed being devoid of merit.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
