Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 534 (JHR)

Sudhir Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Jharkhand

2008-05-06

R.K.MERATHIA

body2008
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties finally. 2. Petitioner had challenged the office order no. 187 dated 28.12.2006 issued by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh, initiating a departmental proceeding against him and also for quashing the office order no.46 contained in Memo No. 920 dated 13.3.2007, putting the petitioner under suspension. 3. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was transferred on 18.5.2006 from the jurisdiction of Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh to the jurisdiction of the Conservator of Forest, Santhal Pargana Circle, Deoghar where he joined on 2.6.2006 and therefore the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh had no jurisdiction to initiate a departmental proceeding by order dated 28.12.2006 and to pass order of suspension dated 13.3.2007 as he was not the controlling/disciplinary authority of the petitioner after his said transfer. 4. Mr. Shamim Akhtar, appearing for the State, on the other submitted that the cause of action for initiating the said departmental proceeding arose within Hazaribagh and therefore the said orders were rightly passed. He further submitted that there are serious charges against the petitioner of tampering with the maps and other records of the Forest Department in order to give benefit to several persons and thereby causing great loss to the Government. He further submitted that two FIRs were also lodged against the petitioner on 20.11.2006 and 3.4.2007 and he remained in custody between 22.12.2007 to 6.2.2008. 5. He referred to the letter dated 10.1.2007 (Annexure-3) to show that the departmental proceeding started against the petitioner by Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh was referred to the competent authority under whom the petitioner was transferred. Referring to Annexure-6 dated 15.3.2007, he submitted that the departmental proceeding and the order of suspension were referred through the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh to his counter part at Dumka seeking direction to the Conservator of Forest, Deoghar to take further action on the said orders passed by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh. He further referred to Annexure-J dated 1.6.2007 and Annexure-K dated 28.2.2008 issued by the Regional Conservator of Forest, Dumka to show that petitioners suspension was approved with effect from 13.3.2007 and during suspension period, his headquarter was fixed as Giridih Forest Circle. On 30.1.2008 while granting time for seeking instruction and filing counter affidavit, the said order dated 28.12.2006, under which departmental proceeding was started, was stayed. 6. On 30.1.2008 while granting time for seeking instruction and filing counter affidavit, the said order dated 28.12.2006, under which departmental proceeding was started, was stayed. 6. Then on 7.3.2008, the said order was modified/clarified to the effect that the order dated 13.3.2007 putting the petitioner under suspension shall remain stayed and not order dated 28.12.2006 in regard to departmental proceeding. He further submitted that after such clarification of the order, the order of suspension was kept in abeyance awaiting the decision in this writ petition. He further submitted that in view of the order dated 28.3.2008, passed in this writ petition, the competent authority has passed a fresh order of suspension on 17.4.2008 and therefore this writ petition has become infructuous. He further submitted that petitioner has made baseless allegation of mala fide against the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh and has produced nothing in support of such allegation. 7. The questions are whether the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh could start a departmental proceeding and suspend him after he was transferred under the Conservator of Forest, Deoghar. With regard to initiation of departmental proceeding, petitioner could not show that it could not be started by Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh. It appears that petitioner was working in Hazaribagh Circle till he was transferred on 18.5.2006 to Santhal Pargana Circle, Deoghar. The charges against the petitioner relates to the period within which he was posted within Hazaribagh Circle. 8. It is also to be noted that he took part in the departmental proceeding by asking for certain documents from the Conservator of Forests, Hazaribagh (Annexure-4) and on 28.3.2008, his counsel submitted in this case that petitioner is cooperating in the departmental proceedings. Thus, initiating the departmental proceeding against the petitioner by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh, and referring it to the Regional Conservator of Forest, Santhal Pargana Circle cannot be held to be bad. In paragraph 6 of 1970 (1) SCC 108 and in paragraph 5 of (1996) 4 SCC 727 , it was observed that it is not necessary that the authority empowered to appoint/dismiss an employee-himself should initiate or conduct the enquiry proceeding. Moreover, the said initiation of departmental proceeding was approved and continued by the Conservator of Forest, Santhal Pargana Circle on the direction of higher authorities. Thus, petitioners challenge to initiation of departmental proceeding by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh on 28.12.2006 has got no merit. 9. Moreover, the said initiation of departmental proceeding was approved and continued by the Conservator of Forest, Santhal Pargana Circle on the direction of higher authorities. Thus, petitioners challenge to initiation of departmental proceeding by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh on 28.12.2006 has got no merit. 9. However, passing the order of suspension on 13.3.2007 by conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh can at best be said to be an irregularity which was cured/ratified by the competent authorities after the order of suspension was referred to the competent authorities. Petitioner could not prove the allegations of mala fide against the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh in initiating the said proceeding and suspending him. 10. In any event, now a fresh order of suspension has been passed by the competent authority-the Conservator of Forest, Santghal Pargana Circle, Deoghar, by office order no. 33 dated 17.4.2008 and therefore the challenge of petitioner that he could not be suspended by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh after his transfer to Santhal Pargana Circle, does not survive any more. In paragraph 5 of 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483, it was said that there is no restriction on the authority to pass a suspension order second time. 11. The concerned respondents will conclude the proceedings as early as possible, and preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petitioner is directed to cooperate in early conclusion of the proceeding, failing which the proceeding may proceed ex-parte. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs. Let a copy of the order be given to State Counsel.