Jharkhand High Court
Sita Ram Choudhary Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 12 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2305 of 2018
----
Sita Ram Choudhary son of Late Preman Choudhary, resident of Village
Kandirganj, P.O. & P.S. Kadirgan, District Nawadah (Bihar).
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary / Principal Secretary,
Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative Department, Nepal House,
Doranda, Ranchi.
2. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Near Engineering
Hostel, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Registrar-cum-Enquiry Officer, Co-operative Societies,
behind Blind School, Bahubazar, District Ranchi.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Ms. Neha Bharadwaj, Advocate
Ms. Sneha Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Akanksha Priya, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, AC to AAG I
----
8/ 12.10.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. Petitioner challenges the order of punishment as contained in
Memo No.3209 dated 29.12.2015, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, by
which the petitioner has been punished. Petitioner was reverted to the lowest
grade in the pay scale and it was further decided that during the suspension
period, he will only be paid the suspension allowance. Further, it was held that
this punishment will remain effective till the final decision of the Court.
Challenging the same, petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on
the ground of delay and also on the ground that no new fact has been brought
before the Appellate Authority. This appellate order as contained in Memo
No.02/Nig (Appeal)-52/2017 Sah.-80 dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure 20 to the
writ petition) is also under challenge.
3. Challenging these two orders, counsel for the petitioner submits
that the charge against the petitioner is nonest. He submits that without
application of mind, Disciplinary Authority has inflicted punishment upon the
petitioner. Further, he submits that the condition imposed to the effect that the
punishment order will remain effective till the final decision of the Court is
absolutely vague. Nowhere it has been mentioned that this decision will be
subject to final order of which Court and in which proceeding. He had preferred
an appeal on the aforesaid ground and all the other grounds and in a
mechanical manner Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the
petitioner was directed to file an affidavit before the Enquiry Officer as there
was an allegation that the petitioner has married for second time during
subsistence of first marriage, which itself is an offence for which he was
proceeded against and the punishment was imposed.
5. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the entire brief.
Petitioner was a Cooperative Extension Officer. There was a matrimonial
dispute which led to departmental proceeding. Wife of the petitioner had
alleged that the petitioner had married for second time during subsistence of
the first marriage. In the Trial Court there was a settlement arrived between
the petitioner and his wife, but, the same was not honoured by the petitioner,
thus, the petitioner had disobeyed the order of the Court. Another allegation is
that the Controlling Officer directed the petitioner to file reply in consideration
of the matrimonial complaint made by his wife, but though the wife has
appeared before the authority, petitioner failed to appear and did not file the
reply. On these grounds, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner.
Enquiry report was submitted, which was not conclusive. Thus, fresh Enquiry
Officer was appointed. New Enquiry Officer enquired into the allegations and
submitted report. Report has been brought on record at page 31. From the
record, it is clear that all the charges were not found to be proved. Thereafter
another chargesheet was drawn against the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner did not join his transferred place of posting and he failed to file an
affidavit swearing that he had not married for the second time during
subsistence of his first marriage. On the basis of the second enquiry, petitioner
was inflicted with the aforesaid punishment.
6. From the record, I also find that a criminal case was instituted
against the petitioner being Complaint Case No.217 of 2001 (T.R. No. 941 of
2012) for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 494 of the Indian Penal
Code. The said complaint case was instituted at the instance of the wife of the
petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nawada, vide judgment dated
18.04.2012 acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Sections 323 and
494 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. In view of the acquittal, the charge of the departmental
proceeding, which relates to allegation of marrying for the second time during
subsistence of first marriage fails. Further, there is nothing on record to
suggest that the petitioner has violated any order of the Court as there was no
complaint before any Court whose order was allegedly violated by the
petitioner. Further, the impugned order of punishment dated 29.12.2015
mentions that the order is valid till final order passed by competent Court. This
last line of the order is absolutely vague.
8. All these aforesaid grounds were taken by the petitioner in appeal,
but the same was not considered. The Appellate Authority in a very
mechanical manner rejected the appeal.
9. The grounds taken by the petitioner ought to have been
addressed by the Appellate Authority, but the Appellate Authority has not
addressed any of the grounds, which the petitioner had raised. Being a
statutory Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority should have considered
and passed a reasoned order on the appeal preferred by the petitioner. To the
contrary, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal in a mechanical
manner, upholding the punishment, when the legality of the punishment was
under challenge in the appeal. Appellate Authority should have considered the
points raised by the petitioner in the appeal while considering the appeal itself.
The word 'consider' has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others versus A.
Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530. In paragraph 19 of the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an opinion has to be
formed by the statutory authority, which should be reflected on the records
itself. The order of the Appellate Authority should reflect the application of
mind and the Appellate Authority cannot simply adopt the language of
Disciplinary Authority and proceed to affirm the order. Paragraph 19 of the said
judgment reads as under: -
19. The word "consider" is of great significance.
The dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think
over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence,
there is a clear connotation to the effect that there
must be active application of mind. In other words,
the term "consider" postulates consideration of all
relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of
opinion by the statutory authority should reflect
intense application of mind with reference to the
material available on record. The order of the
authority itself should reveal such application of
mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt
the language employed by the disciplinary
authority and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide
India Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar and
Bhikhubhai Vithalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat).
10. The Appellate Authority being statutory in nature is duty bound to
address all the issues. Without addressing the issue, the same cannot be said
to be a reasoned order. Statutory Appeal must be decided and disposed of by
the Appellate Authority by speaking and reasoned order. Appellate Authority
has failed to discharge his duty casted upon him by the statute.
11. In view of what has been held and discussed above, I find that the
order passed by the Appellate Authority is cryptic, does not even touch, far
less deal with the points raised by the petitioner. Thus, the appellate order as
contained in Memo No.02/Nig (Appeal)-52/2017 Sah.-80 dated 15.01.2018
(Annexure 20 to the writ petition) needs to be set aside. The same is hereby,
thus, set aside. Matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to consider
afresh the appeal preferred by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order
dealing with the grounds raised by the petitioner as also considering the
judgment of the Trial Court, which is in favour of the petitioner. Appeal should
be heard afresh and decided on merits, considering all the grounds raised by
the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. If the Appellate Authority so pleases, he may give an opportunity of
hearing also to the petitioner.
12. If the Appellate Authority decides the issue against the petitioner,
the petitioner may approach this Court by taking all the additional grounds,
which he has taken in this writ petition.
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
