Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 496 (JHR)

Dr. Ram Krishna Mishra v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-04-23

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner on his appointment to the post of Block Animal Husbandry Officer had Joined the post on 30.5.1979 within the district of Begusarai (Bihar). On the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar his, services were allocated to the State of Jharkhand and he was posted as Sub Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer. Dumka, in July by notification date of 30.5.2005. 2. By notification dated 27.8.2006, he was transferred in the same capacity to Jamshedpur where he joined on 1.9.2006. In the same year by notification dated 29.12.2006, he was again transferred to Kolibera (Seraikella). Against this order of transfer, the petitioner filed, writ petition being WP(S) No. 91 of 2007 seeking quashing of the order of his transfer as contained in memo No. 2898 dated 29.12.2006 in which an interim order was passed on 11.1.2007 as follows: Till then the petitioner shall not be relieved, if not already relieved. 3. Subsequently vide impugned memo No. 1427 dated 11.6.2007 (Annexure-2) he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding against him. Further, report was received against him from his superior in office alleging therein that after joining his post at Dumka on 12.8.200, he dad unauthorizedly absented from his duty during different intervals in between 25.8.2005 and 19.12.2005 and further that be had committed serious financial irregularities. 4. In response to show cause, he submitted his explanation on 29.4.2006. followed by another explanation dated 28.7 22006 His explanation was found not satisfactory A departmental proceeding was initiated against him after serving him with the charges. It was against the order of the suspension dated 11.6.2007 (Annexure 4) that the petitioner filed second writ petition being WP (S) No. 3991 of 2007, praying for: (i) quashing of the order of suspension on the ground of it being illegal, mala fide and in violation of principle of natural justice as it was passed in the teeth of the interim order dated 11.6.2007 passed in the earlier WP (S) No 91 of 2007. (ii) for quashing of the charge sheet served on him including the departmental proceedings vide Resolution dated 11.1.2007 and (iii) for giving him all the consequential benefits. (ii) for quashing of the charge sheet served on him including the departmental proceedings vide Resolution dated 11.1.2007 and (iii) for giving him all the consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge by order dated 30.1.2008 dismissed the aforesaid WP (S) No. 3991 of 2007 with the following observations: Having regard to the seriousness of the allegation made against tie- petitioner and after following the Rules provided under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules the impugned order of suspension was issued, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of suspension Since the charges have already been served upon the petitioner, the respondents are directed to proceed with the departmental proceeding and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to say if the petitioner fulfills the requirement of law, he shall be paid subsistence allowance forthwith With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. 5. Against the aforesaid order dated 301.2008 of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal advancing the following grounds. (i) that the other of suspension is illegal since it is in violation of the interim order passed on 11.1.2007 in Writ petition no. 97 of 2007. (ii) that the impugned order of suspension of the appellant is by way of punishment and his removal from service since the impugned order of suspension has not been passed in contemplation of the departmental proceedings and thus it amounts to interference with the administration of Justice and contempt of Court. (iii) That the suspension order is based on mala fide inquiry report of the respondent No. 3; (iv) That the inquiry officer was impleaded by the appellant petitioner in the earlier writ petition as private respondent and as such, the entire departmental proceeding conducted by him suffers from bias and prejudice. 6. As noticed above, a report was received against the petitioner which contained certain serious allegations against him, A copy of the report was served on him along with the show cause notice to submit his explanation. The explanation submitted by him was considered in detail, and was found unsatisfactory. Thereafter, the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceedings against him, 7. The explanation submitted by him was considered in detail, and was found unsatisfactory. Thereafter, the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceedings against him, 7. The impugned order of suspension (Annexure 4) was passed under the provisions of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules which undisputedly guides the petitioners conditions of service. The petitioner was allowed subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. There is nothing to show that the order was not passed in accordance with the Rules. 8. The interim order passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was for quashing of order of his transfer. It does not in any way operate as a bar for the concerned authority to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner for charges of misconduct and to put him under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceedings and it does not amount to violation of the order. 9. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the order of suspension was issued after following the rules provided under the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules and the departmental proceedings were initiated after serving the charge upon the petitioner, and in this view of the matter, there is no illegality or infirmity either in the order of suspension or the order initiating departmental proceedings. We find up merit in this appeal. Accordingly dismissed. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 10. I agree.