Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Nirmal Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 10 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 3808 of 2020
------
Dr. Nirmal Kumar.. ......Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Health, Medical
Education ad Family Welfare Department, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Health, Medical Education ad Family Welfare
Department, Dhurwa, Ranchi .....Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the petitioner(s): M/s. Indrajit Sinha and Arpan Mishra, Advocates.
For the respondent(s): Ms. Pinky Tiwary, AC to A.G.
-----
04/10.10.2022: Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order 6.3.2020
as contained in Memo No. 77(9) (Annexure-24) by which, the appellate authority
after re-considering the quantum of punishment has reduced the punishment to
that of stoppage of three annual increment without cumulative effect.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment is too harsh
and is not in accordance with the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of
litigation in WP(S) No. 2720 of 2010. It is his contention that since in the earlier
round of litigation, it was observed stated that the petitioner has not committed any
misconduct, the petitioner should have been discharged from the departmental
proceeding and no punishment should be inflicted upon the petitioner. The
disciplinary authority by not discharging/exonerating the petitioner has committed
grave illegality, thus the order impugned needs to be set aside.
4. Counsel for the State, supporting the order of punishment, submits
that the appellate authority has complied the order dated 19.5.2016 passed in
WPS No. 2720 of 2010 and modified the order of punishment. She further submits
that on the earlier occasion, three annual increment was forfeited with cumulative
effect, but after re-consideration, the appellate authority has only forfeited three
annual increment without cumulative effect, thus the petitioner should not have
any grievance against the order impugned. She further submits that the quantum
of punishment falls within the domain of the disciplinary authority which should not
be interfered with unless and until the same is shockingly disproportionate.
5. The petitioner was posted as Resident Medical Officer. As he had
committed misconduct, he was proceeded against. The disciplinary authority after
considering the enquiry report, inflicted the punishment upon the petitioner. The
punishment was stoppage of three annual increment with cumulative effect and
the period which he was on unauthorized leave was adjusted against the
extraordinary leave. The said punishment order was challenged before the
Appellate Authority which was also dismissed. The petitioner approached this
Court by filing WPS No. 2720 of 2010. This Court disposed of the writ petition vide
order dated 19.5.2016 remanding the matter to the appellate authority with a
direction to review the order of punishment dated 10.12.2009 with a direction to
pass an order on the quantum of punishment. It is necessary to quote operative
portion (Para-6) of the aforesaid order, which reads as under;
"6. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing
paragraphs and as a logical sequetor to the said reasons,
the impugned order dated 10.12.2009, issued under the
signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government,
Department of Health, Medical Education and Family
Welfare, Jharkhand and the order dated 9.4.2010 of
reviewing order dated 10.12.2009 the appellate authority
are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted
to the appellate authority to pass orders afresh on the
quantum of punishment within a period of 16 weeks."
6. After the remand, the order impugned dated 6.3.2020 was passed by
which, the punishment order was modified only to the extent that three annual
increment of the petitioner was forfeited, but without cumulative effect.
7. From the earlier round of litigation specially, from para 6 of the
judgment passed by this Court in WPS NO. 2720/2010, I find that the matter was
remitted to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order on the quantum of
punishment. Remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority for re-considering
the quantum of punishment means that this Court was of the view that the
misconduct stood proved to some extent otherwise there would not have been any
reason to remand the matter only to decide the quantum of punishment. After the
remand, the order impugned was passed, whereby cumulative effect of stoppage
of increment was done away with. The Appellate Authority considering the case of
the petitioner passed the order doing away with cumulative effect of the stoppage
of annual increment. What would be the punishment is the sole discretion of the
employer, until and unless, the same is shockingly disproportionate, thus Court
should not interfere with the quantum of punishment, exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. Since in this case, the punishment cannot be said to be shockingly
disproportionate, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
Anu/-CP2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
