Satish Kumar Sandwar vs Chairman Cum Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 1002 Jhar

                                            1                [W.P.(S) No. 2258 of 2018]




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

W.P.(S) No. 2258 of 2018

----

Satish Kumar Sandwar, aged about 61 years, son of late Raj Kishore Prasad Sinha, resident of Flat No.101, 1st Floor, Raj Mansion Apartment, Block-B, Vikas Nagar, Road No.4, Singh More, Latma More, PO Hatia, PS Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.Chairman Cum Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi

2.General Manager (Personnel and General Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi

3.Deputy General Manager (HR), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate For Resp.-JUVNL :- Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate

----

8/01.03.2021 Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, the learned counsel for the

respondent JUVNL.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video

Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into

account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the

parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and

with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing

the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the respondent no.3 by which the

punishment has been imposed against the petitioner pursuant to the

departmental proceeding and further direction with regard to withholding

of promotional right for one year and punishment of censure. The prayer

for quashing the appellate order dated 11.05.2017 is also made.

4. The petitioner was appointed by the then Bihar State

Electricity Board as a L.D.Assistant and has subsequently been promoted

to the post of Joint Secretary and he was posted at Transmission Zone-I

at Ranchi. He retired from service on 31.01.2018. The petitioner was

allocated the cadre of State of Jharkhand in the Jharkhand State

Electricity Board after reorganization of the State of Bihar. The petitioner

was working as Under Secretary cum Registrar in the Electric Supply

Area, Jamshedpur and was served with memorandum of charge dated

14.06.2013 issued by the Joint Secretary. The charges with regard to

some comments on the noting of the file which was meant for

promotion. The charges was with regard to forwarding the proposal of

junior officers ignoring the senior officers for the promotion. The

petitioner joined in the year 2002 in Jharkhand State Electricity Board,

Ranchi under cadre Division. The petitioner has received the outstanding

ACR. The petitioner's service has been confirmed by the respondent

Board. Pursuant to that charge, the departmental proceeding was

initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, the

charge has been approved. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has been

issued second show case. The petitioner filed the reply to the second

show cause and thereafter the impugned order has been passed whereby

the punishment of withholding of two increments with non-cumulative

effect has been passed against the petitioner.

5. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner has been made scape goat. He submits that

two persons including the Joint Secretary, namely Mr. Chandra Mohan

Sharma were charge sheeted with the same allegation. In the

departmental proceeding the charge against the Joint Secretary was also

found proved and the second show cause has been issued and after

considering the second show cause, the Joint Secretary has been

exonerated whereas the petitioner has been punished for the same

charge. He submits that the petitioner has only made the note and the

petitioner is not the final authority to grant promotion. He submits that

the case of the petitioner is fit to be allowed on the ground of parity. He

submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in the light of the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Anand

Regional Coop. Oil Seeds Growers' Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar

Harshadbhai Shah" ,(2006) 6 SCC 548.

6. Per contra, Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent

JUVNL submits that the petitioner is the main person and due to his

noting the promotion was provided and that is why the petitioner has

been punished. He submits that in the departmental proceeding the case

of the petitioner has been proved. He submits that the petitioner has

given the noting to allow promotion to the degree holder Junior Assistant

Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer. He submits that there is no

question of parity with respect to the petitioner as well as the Joint

Secretary. He submits that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. He

further submits that the dealing assistant has given the noting without

legal opinion which could be obtained in the matter and the petitioner

has ignored the same.

7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the

parties, the Court has ventured to go through the materials on record. It

is admitted fact that the petitioner as well as the Joint Secretary namely

Chandra Mohan Sharma were charge sheeted for the same charge. The

charge against the said Chandra Mohan Sharma was also proved in the

departmental proceeding and after the second show cause, the said

Chandra Mohan Sharma was exonerated from the charges whereas the

petitioner has been punished with such punishment as indicated above.

It is not the petitioner who has allowed the promotion. Even assuming

that due to the noting of the petitioner anything has happened, the

entire responsibility cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. The higher

authorities have thereafter considered the case of the persons for such

promotion and they have passed the order. The file also moved before

the Joint Secretary-II who has also been charge sheeted for the same

charges whereas he has been exonerated and the petitioner has been

punished which suggests that the petitioner has been made scape goat.

The identically situated person has been exonerated and on the

ground of parity, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order

dated 18.12.2015 is quashed.

8. The writ petition is disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/,