(Mahendra Nath Champiya vs . The State Of Jharkhand & Ors.)
2023 Latest Caselaw 1485 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        W.P.(S). No. 4070 of 2015
        (Mahendra Nath Champiya Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.)
                                ------

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, AC to GP-I

------

06/ 05.04.2023 Petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.02.2013, passed under the provision of Rule 76(b) of Jharkhand Service Code.

Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that though the order has been passed under Rule 76(b) of the Jharkhand Service Code but it was incumbent upon the respondents to initiate a regular departmental proceeding and after providing ample opportunity to the petitioner order could have been passed. Learned counsel places reliance on Rule-76(b) of the Jharkhand Service Code, which reads as under, "where a government servant does not resume duty after remaining on leave for a continuous period of 5 years, or where a Government servant after the expiry of his leave remains absent from duty, otherwise than on foreign service or on account of suspension, for any period which together with the period of the leave granted to him, exceeds a continuous period of 5 years, he shall unless the State Government otherwise determine be removed from service after following the procedure laid down in the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935".

Further, it has been argued that from perusal of sub-Rule (b) of Rule-76 of the Code it appears that a Government servant on account of his absence for continuous period of five years would be removed from services after following the procedures as laid down in the Rule. The order of removal from services without initiation of a proceeding under the provisions of the Rules would be wholly without jurisdiction and the petitioner, thus, would be deemed to be throughout in continuous service under the Government and will be entitled for all retiral benefits.

Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court passed in case of Raj Nath Rai Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2003) 2 PLJR 209 (Pat) and also the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2008 of 2012 (Ashok Kumar Tudu Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), delivered on 19.02.2016.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108.

However, respondent-State has not replied as to whether CCA Rule is attracted or not in the present case.

For further hearing, list this case after two weeks.

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) kunal