Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1365 (JHR)

Dashrath Ravidas v. State of Jharkhand

2013-12-17

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER By the Court - Challenging the order dated 25.10.2012 whereby the petitioner has been issued show-cause notice in connection with the departmental proceeding for which a memo of charge dated 17.09.2012 has been issued, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, into the same set of allegations a charge-memo dated 02.02.2012 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied on 16.05.2012 and an inquiry report was submitted on 10.07.2012 in which the inquiry officer recommended that the petitioner may be discharged of the charge levelled against him. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the earlier inquiry conducted into the matter, the 2nd charge-memo would not have been issued to the petitioner and therefore, the order dated 25.10.2012 is liable to be interfered by this Court. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under : 13. That the statements made in paras 15 and 16 of the writ petition makes it clear that petitioner is an astute litigant of its own caliber. From Annexure-3 is reply to show-cause and Annexure-2 is never Parpatra (d) (Form K) nor same can be said to be Parpatra (d) and being a Revenue Karamchari under Circle Officer he might have procured part of signed of Circle Officer and concocted Annexure-1 to use same with oblique purpose. It is only 17.09.2012 that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih, vide letter no. 856 dated 17.09.2012 in reply to letter dated 18.07.2012 of Additional Collector, Giridih sent proposed Parparta (d) by the Anchal Adhikari Gandey dated 24.05.2012 and counter-signed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the Sub-divisional Officer, Giridih to the Additional Collector, Giridih which has been noticed by Deputy Commissioner, Giridih on 03.10.2012 on being placed before him and only there after deputy Commissioner, Giridih by virtue of Annexure-A herein ordered to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner which is pending as stated herein before. 14. That the statements made under paras 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the writ petition are nothing but imaginary story of advance strategy made by the petitioner. Land Reforms Deputy Collector passed the operative portion of the order on the basis of overwriting, fabrication in Tenant's Ledger i.e. Register-II and long standing Jamabandi of the appellant. 14. That the statements made under paras 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the writ petition are nothing but imaginary story of advance strategy made by the petitioner. Land Reforms Deputy Collector passed the operative portion of the order on the basis of overwriting, fabrication in Tenant's Ledger i.e. Register-II and long standing Jamabandi of the appellant. Ram Chandra Sonar became instrumental for the petitioner who made representations and lodged complaint to make the authorities constrained to serve his purpose and that of the petitioner but they failed in their move. It is in normal course that whenever a complaint is lodged, the same is sent to the concerned police station U/s 156(3) Cr.P.Code. Petitioner is trying hard to save himself from departmental proceedings against him where in fabrication of tenant's ledger has been alleged. 15. That the statement made in para 21 of the writ petition are mis-statement of the facts and embraces incorrect statements. From the Annexure-3 it is clear that the same is reply to show-cause asked for by the Anchal Adhikari as per direction of the Additional Collector dated 04.02.2008 and said Annexure-2 dated 02.02.2012 is not Form-K (Praparta-Ka) 16. That statement made in para 22, 23 and 24 of the writ petition are mis-statement of facts and totally misconceived. There is only one Prapatra 'd' which has been framed by virtue of Annexure-A dated 22.10.2012 by the answering respondent no.2 on the basis of proposed Prapatra 'd' dated 24.05.2012 sent by Anchal Adhikari after being counter-signed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and other authorities, which got served upon petitioner through memo no. 2160 dated 25.10.2012 and at present only departmental proceeding vide case no.2 of 2013 is pending against the petitioner and there is no other proceeding against the petitioner. Letter no. 856 dated 17.09.2012 by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih is incompliance with direction dated 18.07.2012 of Additional Collector of Giridih where by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector send the said proposed Parpatra 'd' dated 24.05.2012 by the Anchal Adhikari Gandey and counter-signed by the said officer and ultimately got submitted before the answering respondent no 2 on 03.10.2012 and he passed the aforesaid order dated 22.10.2012. It is incorrect to allege that there was any other charge dated 02.02.2012 against the petitioner. There is sufficient material against the petitioner substantiating the charges against the petitioner. 5. It is incorrect to allege that there was any other charge dated 02.02.2012 against the petitioner. There is sufficient material against the petitioner substantiating the charges against the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the inquiry report dated 10.07.2012 is not the report in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The show-cause dated 02.02.2012 is not the Prapatra-K and in fact the charge-memo was issued to the petitioner on 24.05.2012. He has further submitted that the contents of the order dated 25.10.2012 itself would indicate that serious irregularities were found in the matter and therefore, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. 6. On perusal of the documents on record, I find that the order dated 25.10.2012 reveals interpolations made in the name of the land-holders and indicates that undue personal benefit has been taken. The issuance of the charge-sheet or the show-cause notice can be challenged only on the ground of the show-cause/charge-sheet being wholly without jurisdiction or patently illegal. 7. In Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana”, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. 8. I find that this is not the case of the petitioner that Deputy Commissioner, Giridih who has issued letter dated 25.10.2012, has no jurisdiction. In view of the facts mentioned in letter dated 25.10.2012, I do not find any illegality in issuing the letter dated 25.10.2012. I further find that in “Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. R.K. Shewaramani and Another”, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 76 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “10. There is no requirement in law that for continuing with fresh proceedings the charge-sheet issued must indicate that the previous proceedings pending have been given a go-by. The employer is free to proceed in as many departmental proceedings as it considers desirable. Even in a hypothetical case in two of the departmental proceedings the finding is in favour of the delinquent employee, yet in another departmental proceeding a finding adverse to the delinquent officer can be recorded. Merely because the two proceedings were pending, that did not in any way stand on the way of the employer to initiate another departmental proceeding and that too on the basis of an amended provision which came into effect after initiation of the previous departmental proceeding. The High Court’s view therefore is clearly unsustainable. The High Court had also observed that in the show-cause notice there was no reference to Rule 30(A). This is not factually correct. As the records reveal, clear reference was made to the IDPL Corporate Office Letter No. IDP/7/32/Estt/90 dated 24-9-1990. This related to the amendment of Rule 30(A). Additionally, the respondent employee was not taken to surprise and no prejudice was caused to him by not mentioning Rule 30(A) specifically. This is not factually correct. As the records reveal, clear reference was made to the IDPL Corporate Office Letter No. IDP/7/32/Estt/90 dated 24-9-1990. This related to the amendment of Rule 30(A). Additionally, the respondent employee was not taken to surprise and no prejudice was caused to him by not mentioning Rule 30(A) specifically. On the other hand, from his reply dated 22-6-1990 it is clearly revealed that he knew that the proceeding was in terms of the amended Rule 30(A). His specific stand as is revealed from the reply to the show-cause notice is that the Company having realised that it will not be in a position to establish the allegations forming foundation of the two departmental proceedings, has resorted to Rule 30(A). That being so, the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference by concluding that non-mention of Rule 30(A) specifically in the show-cause notice vitiate the proceedings. There is no dispute that the factors necessary to bring in application of Rule 30(A) existed. The High Court was also not justified in coming to the conclusion that the action of the authorities in initiating the proceedings in terms of Rule 30(A) is not bona fide. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in order dated 25.10.2012. There is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the opinion expressed in this order would not prejudice the case of the petitioner when a final order is passed in the departmental proceeding. Petition dismissed.