Jharkhand High Court
Shilendra Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 8 January, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 7652 of 2013
Shilendra Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Project
Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Project
Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
4. State of Bihar through Secretary, General Administration
Department (earlier known as Personnel, Administrative
Reforms), Patna. ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I
---------
09/Dated: 8th January, 2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. This is second round of litigation. The petitioner had
earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7522 of 2012,
wherein the contention of the petitioner was that no reason
has been assigned for passing the order of penalty against
this petitioner and even the appellate order suffers from
non-application of mind.
3. This Court after discussing several judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the writ application and
quashed the order of punishment dated 03.01.2012 and the
appellate order dated 30.08.2012 and the disciplinary
authority was directed to pass a fresh order within a period
of four weeks.
4. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ
petition are that, the petitioner was appointed on
01.06.1984 on the post of Stenographer. On 09.10.2007, an
F.I.R. being Patna (Vigilance) Case No. 112 of 2007 was
registered as the petitioner was caught red-handed while
taking bribe of Rs.2,000/-. A departmental proceeding was
also initiated in which charges were framed against this
petitioner vide memo no.11176 dated 17.10.2008, on the
allegation that he was caught red-handed while taking
bribe of Rs.2,000/- on 09.10.2007. On conclusion of the
enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted holding the
charges leveled against the petitioner found proved. The
petitioner filed his reply to the second show-cause notice on
13.07.2011 and the order of penalty dated 03.01.2012 was
passed by the Respondent No.3- the disciplinary authority.
Against the order of penalty, the petitioner preferred an
appeal which was also rejected by order dated 30.08.2012.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner had approached this Court
by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7522 of 2012.
5. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 7522 of
2012 the petitioner represented before the disciplinary
authority and a final order has been passed as contained in
Memo No. 8916 dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure-16).
6. Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the disciplinary authority has committed
the same error for which the case was remanded, inasmuch
as, in the impugned order also they have not given any
reason, as such the impugned order deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
7. Mr. Tandon further contended that he has taken a
specific plea before the disciplinary authority in his reply to
the second show-cause notice that the petitioner was not
given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness,
however, this aspect of the matter has not been considered
at all while passing the order of penalty. As a matter of fact,
no witness was examined while passing the order of
punishment.
8. Relying upon the above contentions Mr. Tandon
submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed
and set aside and no fruitful purpose would be served in
remanding the matter back again in view of the law laid
down in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National
Bank and Others as reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570,
inasmuch as, his case is entirely covered by the aforesaid
case, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when
no witness was examined the charge cannot be proved.
9. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the
respondent-State opposes the contention of the petitioner
that no fruitful purpose would be served in remanding the
case back to authorities for passing fresh order. He further
contended that under Article 226, this Court cannot sit in
appeal for re-appreciating the evidence. However, he fairly
submits that the impugned order dated 10.09.2013
(Annexure-16) has been passed without giving reasons in
detail in true letter and spirit as per the direction of this
Court passed in earlier writ application filed by the
petitioner.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the documents available on record, it
appears that the case was remanded back to the
disciplinary authority for passing fresh order in view of the
fact that no reason was assigned in the order of penalty and
even the appellate order was cryptic in nature.
From perusing the impugned order (Annexure-16), it
appears that the department has committed the same error
by not assigning any reason and not dealing with the
specific grounds raised by the petitioner given in his reply
to the second show-cause. Further, the impugned order has
been passed, relying upon another judgment passed in
W.P.(S) No. 6441 of 2010 which was certainly the earlier
order. This court is having no hesitation in holding that the
disciplinary authority has committed the same error for
which the case was remanded.
11. In this view of the matter, the impugned order
deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the
order of penalty as contained in Memo No. 8916 dated
10.09.2013 (Annexure-16) is quashed and set aside. The
respondents are free to pass a fresh order in accordance
with law and in the light of judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.
7522 of 2012 and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra).
12. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the
instant writ application is allowed and stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
