Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 612 (JHR)

Satyendra Kumar v. State of Bihar

2011-07-07

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2011
JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar, J. 1. In view of statement made in I.A. No. 1896 of 2006, prayer of amendment is allowed and the aforesaid interlocutory application will become part and parcel of this writ application. 2. It is submitted by Sri Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that Petitioner was suspended in the year 1996 and a departmental proceeding initiated against him. However, when no order passed in the said departmental proceeding, though enquiry had already concluded, Petitioner filed a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 400 of 1998 and said writ application disposed of vide order dated 15.03.1999, directing the Respondent to pass final order in the departmental proceeding after serving a copy of inquiry report on the Petitioner. It appears that in compliance of aforesaid order, vide Annexure 15, inquiry report served upon the Petitioner. The said inquiry report is annexed as Annexure 16. 3. It is submitted that from perusal of inquiry report, it appears that the Enquiry Officer (Respondent No. 5) exonerated Petitioner from all the charges leveled against him. It is submitted that by Annexure 17, the Respondent State differed from the findings of inquiry report and said that on reconsideration of materials charge Nos. 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 have been found proved against Petitioner. It is submitted that no reason assigned by the Respondent State for differing with the findings of Enquiry Officer. Thus, finding of the Respondent State cannot be sustained. 4. Learned G.P.II, appearing on behalf of State of Jharkhand, has stated that from perusal of inquiry report (Annexure 16), it appears that charge Nos. 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 have been decided in favour of Petitioner, but the State Government, after reconsidering the same, came to the conclusion that the said charges are proved. It is submitted that the State Government has got power to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, he submits that there is no illegality in the order. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. It is well settled principles of law that disciplinary authority has powers to differ from the findings of Enquiry Officer, but he can do so after giving reason for the same. 6. Accordingly, he submits that there is no illegality in the order. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. It is well settled principles of law that disciplinary authority has powers to differ from the findings of Enquiry Officer, but he can do so after giving reason for the same. 6. From perusal of Annexure 17, I find that the State Government, who is disciplinary authority of Petitioner, has not given any reason for differing from the findings of Enquiry Officer on charge Nos. 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17. 7. Under the said circumstance, aforesaid finding given by the State Government cannot be sustained. Consequently, decision of the State Government for deducting 15% pension of the Petitioner cannot be sustained. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion, Annexure 17 is hereby quashed and Respondents are directed to pay full pension to the Petitioner from the date of his retirement. Petitioner is also entitled to get his salary during the period he was under suspension as per Jharkhand Service Code. 9. So far another prayer of Petitioner that a direction may be given to pay Rs. 800/per month as house rent is concerned, it is stated that no foundational fact stated in the writ application for the same. Hence, that prayer made by the Petitioner is hereby rejected. Application allowed.