Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 523 (JHR)

Prem Nandan v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-22

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2010
JUDGMENT ]Amareshwar Sahay, J.- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was posted as an Executive Engineer and now has retired in the year 2008 i.e. during the pendency of this writ petition. He was proceeded departmentally in the year 2003 for certain charges. One Mr. M.L. Roy, Joint Secretary, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. 3. On conclusion of the enquiry Sri Roy submitted his report on 10.10.2003 to the Disciplinary authority. Since the matter remained pending before the Disciplinary authority for a long time and he was not passing any order on the said enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.' 2685 of 2006 alleging therein that though the Enquiry Officer submitted his report in the month of October 2003, but even after a lapse of 3 years no final order has been passed by the Disciplinary authority. 4. Considering all those facts, this Court by order dated 16th May 2006 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, remitted the matter back by directing the Disciplinary Authority to consider the enquiry report and take a decision by passing a final order in the departmental proceeding within one month from the date of receipt of the order, 5. The petitioner states that when inspite the order of this Court, no order was passed by the Disciplinary authority then he filed a petition for initiating a proceeding for contempt, During the pendency of the said proceeding for contempt, the petitioner was served with a copy of the resolution dated 23.2.2006 and also a notice to show cause on 1.7.2006, whereby he was informed that on consideration of facts and circumstances of the case the enquiry report submitted earlier was found to be vague and contrary and, therefore, a decision has been taken to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding. The said resolution dated 23.2.2006 has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ application, 6. The said resolution dated 23.2.2006 has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ application, 6. The petitioner has challenged this resolution dated 23.2.2006 served on him on 1.7.2006 by filing the present writ application and prayed for quashing of the resolution to initiate a fresh enquiry against him by virtue of Annexure-7 on the ground that the same is malafide and that the authorities had no jurisdiction- to initiate a fresh enquiry proceeding, which was earlier conducted and concluded in accordance with law and despite of the direction given by this Court no final order was passed by the Disciplinary authority on such enquiry report. 7. From perusal of Annexure-7 dated 23.2.2006 it appears that in the said resolution it has been stated that in the earlier departmental proceeding which was initiated in the year 2003 Sri Mohan Lal Roy, the then Joint Secretary was appointed as Enquiry Officer, but he was transferred and thereafter one Sri Nipin Prasad Dubey, the then Superintending Engineer, Monitoring Circle, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and he submitted enquiry report and on consideration of the enquiry report submitted by the Superintending Engineer the Govt. found the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer to be vague and contradictory. 8. From perusal of Annexure-D to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State it appears that the fact mentioned in the resolution dated 23.2.2006 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is not correct because the enquiry report has been annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit as Annexure-B and from perusal of which, it appears that the said enquiry report was in fact submitted by Mr. M.L Roy, the then Joint Secretary and not by Sri Nipin Prasad Dubey, the then Superintending Engineer as has been mentioned in Annexure-7. This itself goes to show that the authorities concerned either have not perused the first enquity report or they have not even applied their mind on the finding arrived at by the first enquiry officer in the said enquiry report. It is not clear from the impugned Annexure7, the resolution dated 23.2.2006 that on what basis the concerned authority has come to the conclusion that the enquiry report submitted in the earlier proceeding was vague and contradictory. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for coming to the said conclusion. 9. It is not clear from the impugned Annexure7, the resolution dated 23.2.2006 that on what basis the concerned authority has come to the conclusion that the enquiry report submitted in the earlier proceeding was vague and contradictory. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for coming to the said conclusion. 9. It appears that after filing of the present writ application, 2nd departmental enquiry was initiated and concluded ex-parte and a report was submitted on 13.7.2006 i.e. Annexure-D to the supplementary counter affidavit, whereby it was held that the charges against the petitioner were established. 10. By an interim order dated 17.7.2006 this Court restrained the Disciplinary Authority from passing any order on the basis of the second ex-parte enquiry report accordingly, no order on the 2nd enquiry report has been passed. 11. In the foregoing paragraphs I have already held that the resolution dated 23.2.2006 suffers from non-application of mind and it is based on error of record and no reason has been assigned for coming to the conclusion that earlier enquiry report was ambiguous or contradictory and, therefore, I hold that the decision of the respondent authorities for initiating a fresh inquiry against the petitioner was itself illegal and invalid in law, 12. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The resolution dated 23.2.2006 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application as well as all the subsequent orders including the 2nd enquiry report are hereby quashed. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will no order as to the costs.