Jharkhand High Court
Jamini Kanta Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 24 March, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2852 of 2009
-------
Jamini Kanta Rajak ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.
3. Block Development Officer, Dhanbad.
4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Adv.
For the Res.State :Mr. Anish Mishra, A.C. to G.A.I
-------
Through:- Video Conferencing
-------
07/24.03.2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred
by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as
contained in Memo No.64 dated 29.03.2009 issued by the
respondent No.2 in terms of which a punishment of
stoppage of one increment and payment of subsistence
allowance only during the period of suspension has been
inflicted on the petitioner.
3. Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the
petitioner tries to impress this Court that there is
perversity in finding of the Inquiry Officer and further no
reasoning has been given by the disciplinary authority in
passing the impugned order. She further submits that as
per record it appears that no separate notice was given
while imposing the punishment No.2 i.e. the petitioner will
get only the subsistence allowance during the period of
suspension.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the
Patna High Court in the case of Dinesh Prasad Vs. State
of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2006 SCC Online Pat 770:
(2006) 4 PLJR 514, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as
under:-
"9. Apart from these questions, so far the main question
for which this matter has been referred, is concerned, it
appears that for imposing the punishment no.(iii) that the
petitioner shall not get anything for the period of
suspension save and except the subsistence allowance,
the disciplinary authority was required to give separate
show cause notice to the delinquent in terms of Rule 97(3)
of the Code. This part of the order, therefore, is not
permissible in absence of any such notice to the
delinquent employee."
Relying upon the aforesaid judgment she
submits that the impugned order may be quashed and
consequential benefits may be extended to this petitioner.
4. Mr. Anish Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondent-State fairly submits that from record it does not
transpires that before imposing punishment No.2; any
separate notice was issued to this petitioner or not.
For punishment No.1, he contended that there is
no error and it was found that the petitioner had prepared
bogus Muster Roll with the names of some job card holders
who had neither worked in the scheme nor had received
any payment and the detail of the work was not entered in
the said job card of the actual holders.
In this view of the matter, he submits that no
interference is required, however for punishment No.2
respondents may be given liberty to issue separate notice to
the petitioner, and pass a necessary order.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the documents annexed and the
averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that
punishment No.1 is minor punishment and there is no
procedural error in passing the impugned order. Further,
from perusal of the enquiry report it also appears that each
and every aspect of the matter has been discussed in detail;
as such the contention of the petitioner that the impugned
order of punishment is non-speaking order does not have
any legs to stand in view of the latest judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Boloram Bordoloi
VS Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors (Civil Appeal No.4934
of 2010) reported in 2021 SCC Online SC65 that if the
disciplinary authority accepts the finding recorded by the
Inquiry Officer who has given detail reasons then no
elaborate reasons are required to be given by the
disciplinary authority; as such no interference is required
in the impugned order so far as punishment no.1 is
concerned.
However for punishment No.2; with regard to
payment of only subsistence allowance during the period of
suspension, from record it does not transpires that
separate notice was issued to the petitioner. In this view of
the matter relying upon the law laid down in the case of
Dinesh Prasad (supra) the instant writ application is
hereby disposed of by directing the respondents to issue
notice to the petitioner under Rule 97(3) of the Bihar
(Jharkhand) Service Code and pass a fresh order with
regard to punishment No.2 i.e. payment of subsistence
allowance only during the period of suspension.
6. It goes without saying that since the matter is
very old, the entire exercise shall be completed within a
period of four months from the date of receipt/production
of a copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ
application stands partly allowed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
