Md. Anwar Hussain Son Of Late Md. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4100 Jhar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  W.P.(S) No.4217 of 2018
                                             ----

Md. Anwar Hussain son of Late Md. Jasimuddin, resident of village Bari, P.O. Khamdih, P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau.

... Petitioner

-versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar, Palamau.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa.

4. District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa.

... Respondents

----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC IV

----

5/ 11.10.2022 This writ petition can be disposed of on a very short point.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing second show cause notice and without serving enquiry report, major punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner.

2. I have heard respective learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the writ petition as also the counter affidavit in this case.

3. Petitioner has been proceeded against departmentally in terms of Chargesheet dated 23.12.2015 as contained in memo No.2796. Thereafter petitioner was punished vide order No.2748 dated 29.12.2016. Punishment which has been inflicted upon the petitioner is stoppage of two yearly increments with cumulative effect, censor and transfer of petitioner. Admittedly, stoppage of two yearly increments with cumulative effect is major punishment. Petitioner has taken specific plea in paragraph 29 of the writ petition to the effect that neither second show cause notice was issued nor enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner before inflicting the punishment. The State has filed parawise counter affidavit. There is a reply to paragraph 29 of the writ petition. Reply is at paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the statement made in paragraph 29 of the writ petition has not been denied. It is necessary to quote paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under: -

"21. That in reply to para 29 and 30 of the writ petition it is stated and submitted that order of punishment is based on the decision of the district education establishment committee and even the appellant

authority it divisional commissioner also found the action genuine as such further comment."

4. From the aforesaid pleadings, there can be only one conclusion that neither the second show cause notice nor the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner.

5. The issue has now been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision in the case of ECIL versus B. Karunakar reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727. Thus, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ECIL (supra), this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order of punishment, vide order No.2748 dated 29.12.2016 is set aside. Consequentially, the appellate order dated as contained in Memo No.516 dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) is also set aside. Matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to start the proceeding after giving second show cause notice and after giving enquiry report to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law.

6. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02