Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Anuj Kumar Bariyar on 6 February, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 690 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Rural Development
Authority, Godda officiating from Godda, P.O: Godda, PS: Godda,
District - Godda.
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda officiating from
Godda, P.O.: Godda, P.S.: Godda, District: Godda.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Anuj Kumar Bariyar, son of Shiv Nandan Prasad, residing at Lahri Tola,
Near Radhika Printing Press, Bye Pass Road, Godda, P.O - Godda, P.S
- Godda, District - Godda.
Petitioner/ Respondent.
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I
For the Respondent: Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 22.01.2025 Pronounced on: 6 /02/2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and there being
no opposition by the respondent to the grounds shown, I.A. No.11099 of
2023 is allowed and the delay of 224 days in filing the appeal is
condoned.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dt. 27th of March
2023 in W.P. (S) No. 906 of 2021 of the learned Single Judge.
3. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging an
Office Order No.02/2021 contained in Memo No.92 dt. 22.01.2021
issued under the signature of appellant No.3, whereunder the services of
the respondent, though on contractual basis, have been terminated.
4. The respondent was working on a consolidated pay on the post of
Computer Operator in the District Rural Development Authority, Godda
from 2008.
5. Subsequently, he along with another was appointed on the post of
Computer Operator on honorarium basis in a meeting dt. 03.01.2009
held under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman,
District Rural Development Authority, Godda.
6. While so, through a Memo No.910 dt. 19.09.2020, the respondent
was placed under suspension and the following three charges were
levelled against him by the appellants:
"1. That he had demanded Rs.1.50 Lakh;
2.He had abused and used unparliamentary language
including insinuation of caste, and
3. That, he had threatened of lodging an F.I.R. for committing
forgery."
7. A Charge Memo was issued containing these charges and an
Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry.
8. The respondent denied the charges levelled against him in the
charge memo.
9. Thereafter, an enquiry report was prepared and the same was
issued to the respondent along with a letter dt. 06.11.2020 asking him to
file his explanation to the findings mentioned in the enquiry report.
10. The letter dt. 06.11.2020 did not make any mention about the
findings of the enquiry committee as regards Charge No.1.
As regards Charge No.2, though the letter stated that the
respondent was found guilty, a perusal of the enquiry report indicates
that he was not found guilty even with regard to Charge No.2.
As regards Charge No.3, which dealt with a threat allegedly
made by the respondent of lodging a false F.I.R. of committing forgery,
the finding was that he obtained certain signatures of some persons,
which was not the charge.
11. However, the said enquiry report mentioned some new charges
which had not been put to the respondent at all, i.e., with regard to
installation of dustbin of his company. Thus, there was a violation of
principles of natural justice.
12. The learned Single Judge, therefore, came to the conclusion that
the office order dt. 22.01.2021 terminating the services of the respondent
cannot be sustained.
13. Though counsel for the appellants sought to contend that the order
of the learned Single Judge is erroneous, the appellants were not able to
show that any of the charges were found proved against the respondent
in the enquiry conducted against him. They cannot also sustain the order
of termination on the basis of a charge which is not informed to the
respondent.
14. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is,
accordingly, dismissed.
15. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Manoj/-
