Mohammad Kalamul Haque vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2813 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                W.P.(S) No. 1081 of 2019

                Mohammad Kalamul Haque                         ...     ...      Petitioner
                                         Versus
                State of Jharkhand and Ors.             ...        ...        Respondents
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C. III

---

07/21.07.2022 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of punishment has been passed after his retirement. The petitioner has retired on 31.01.2016. He has also submitted that the portion of the order of punishment is incapable of being implemented as the petitioner has been given the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect after his superannuation by order of punishment dated 18.04.2016. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner as of now is aggrieved by the portion of the order whereby it has been held that the petitioner will not be entitled to any amount for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance. He submits that no show cause was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of that order in terms of Rule 97 of Jharkhand Service Code which is pari materia of Rule 54 of Fundamental Rules.

3. He has referred to judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR (1968) SC 240 (M. Gopalakrishna Naidu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) and also 1975 SCC Online Pat 45 (Shri Mahabir Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.). He has also relied upon two judgments passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in W.P.(S). No.4762 of 2015 (Sukhram Baitha Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.) and W.P.(S). No.7388 of 2016 (Mukesh Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is a major of punishment and in the instant case, no second show cause was issued to the petitioner, but in view of the fact that the order of punishment is not capable of being implemented against the petitioner, he is

confining his relief only to the extent of payment for the period of suspension.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he will also examine the matter.

6. Let this matter be treated as a part heard.

7. Post this case on 25.07.2022 for further hearing.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav