Jharkhand High Court
Santraj Baraik vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 3461 of 2019
Santraj Baraik ......Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla.
3. The Additional Collector, Gumla.
4. The District Establishment Officer, Gumla.
5. The Circle Officer, Gumla. ...Respondents.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the petitioner(s): Ms. Alka Kumari, Advocate.
For the State: AC to GP-II.
--------
07/06.12.2022: This writ petition can be disposed of on very limited issue.
2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed to quash the order
dated 30.10.2017, whereby he has been punished vide Memo No. 1260(ii). The
punishment which has been inflicted is recovery of Rs.2,34,000/- from the
petitioner and forfeiture of three annual increments. It has been further ordered
that during the said period, the petitioner will not be considered for promotion.
3. The petitioner is a clerk of Basia Circle. There is an allegation that he
has committed misconduct while he was posted at Bisunpur Circle. A show cause
was issued to him to which, he replied, but finding the said reply unsatisfactory, it
was decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against him. On conclusion of
departmental proceeding, the petitioner was punished.
4. The ground which has been taken in this writ petition is that the
second show cause notice along with the enquiry report was not served to the
petitioner. Since the punishment is major in nature, the petitioner should have
been issued the second show cause notice along with the enquiry report.
In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, a specific plea has been made to
the aforesaid fact. It is necessary to quote para 12 of the writ petition;
"12. That the petitioner states that order passed for
recovery without serving any second show cause notice
to the writ petitioner which is violative of principles of
natural justice as mandated in the several judgments by
the Hon'ble Apex Court."
5. This Court on 21.9.2022 had put specific question to the respondents
as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner or not before
passing the impugned order of punishment. No reply has been filed by the State. A
counter affidavit has been filed by the State wherein, at para 17, reply has been
made to paragraph 12 to the writ petition, stating that show cause were issued to
the petitioner on 9.7.2007 and 12.6.2013 and the petitioner has replied the same
on 31.7.2007 and 19.7.2013 respectively. Those reply has been annexed along
with the counter affidavit.
6. After going through the said reply, I find that those are not the reply to
second show cause notice, which were issued before inflicting the punishment,
rather the show cause notice was issued when the departmental proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner or before that.
7. Thus, from the contention of the respondents as well as the
statements made in the counter affidavit, I find that the respondents have failed to
reply the specific query which was put on 21.9.2022. Therefore, it is clear that the
second show cause notice along with enquiry report was not served to the
petitioner.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme in the case of ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar reported
in (1993) 4 SCC 727 has held that second show cause notice along with enquiry
report must be served to the petitioner before inflicting any major punishment.
9. Considering the aforesaid judgment and the fact that the second show
cause notice along with enquiry report was not served to the petitioner, yet a major
punishment has been inflicted upon him, I set aside the impugned order of
punishment dated 30.10.2017 and remand the matter to the Disciplinary
Authority to continue the proceeding afresh after serving the second show
cause notice along with the copy of inquiry report to the petitioner.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands
disposed of.
Anu/-CP2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
