Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 382 (JHR)

Bachcha Prasad Pathak v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-03-26

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Notification No. 501 (s), dated 30th January, 2003, whereby and whereunder, he has been punished in pursuance of departmental proceeding and inflicted with punishment of censure and stoppage of annual increment. 2. The brief case of the petitioner is that he was suspended, vide Notification No. 2902 (S), dated 18th June, 2002 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding followed by initiation of proceeding, vide Resolution dated 10th July, 2002. Two allegations were leveled against the petitioner, namely, (i) he accepted N.S.C. as security money while granting contract in favour of one Shri Ram Nagina Tiwary, Contractor without pledging it; and (ii) though the rate quoted by two tenderers; one local (Shri Ujjawal Kumar Sinha) and an outsider (Shri Ram Nagina Nath Tiwary) were same, it was given to the outsider and not to the local Contractor. The Enquiry Officer held both the charges not proved. 3. Even after the finding of the Enquiry Officer, no final order having been passed by the State and as the petitioner is to superannuate in March, 2003, the petitioner had to move before this Court in WP (S) No. 5187 of 2003, against the order of suspension and the departmental proceeding. This Court vide order dated 13th September, 2002 while did net choose to interfere with the order of suspension and the charge sheet, directed the respondents to conclude the proceeding and pass final order within three months. It was made clear that if no final order is passed, the order of suspension shall stand revoked on completion of three months. Thereafter, the respondents issued the impugned order of punishment contained in Notification No. 501 (S), dated 30th January, 2003. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of punishment has been passed by the respondents State without differing with the finding of Enquiry officer. The petitioner was also not informed that the State is going to differ with the finding nor the ground on which they intended to differ to punish the petitioner. In this connection, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Mishra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 and certain other decisions. 5. In this connection, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Mishra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 and certain other decisions. 5. There being no satisfactory explanation given by the respondents, the Court called for the original records from which it appears that the competent authority never differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, nor given any reason to differ even in the note sheet. Admittedly, no such communication was made to the petitioner that the respondents intended to differ with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the N.S.C. was pledged, which will be evident from the letter issued by the concerned Bank. He rightly argued that no person can be denied contract merely on the ground that he is outsider. Such charge itself is misconceived as otherwise grant of contract only to the local Contractor is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the circumstances, the petitioner having exonerated of the charges; competent authority having not differed with the finding of the enquiry report; and the petitioner having not informed that the State Government intend to differ with the finding of Enquiry Officer to punish him, the order of punishment cannot be upheld. 8. Accordingly, the punishment order, contained in Notification No. 501 (S), dated 30th January. 2003, is set aside. The respondents will pay the petitioner the salary of the period of suspension, as per Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code taking into consideration the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer within three months. 9. The writ petition is allowed. No cost.