Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 138 (JHR)

Dipak Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-22

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent Zila Parishad. 2. By the impugned order contained in Memo No. 1103 dated 31st August 2013 (Annexure-8) issued by the respondent No. 5- Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, service of the petitioner has been repatriated to Zila Parishad, Godda with immediate effect, directing him to hand over the charge. 3. The petitioner was admittedly working as Head Assistant-cum-Accountant in Zila Parishad, Godda when his services were transferred by Memo No. 357 dated 14th August 2010 from Zila Parishad, Godda to Zila Parishad, Jamtara by the order of Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Godda (Annexure-1) in view of the letter issued by the Director, Panchayati Raj dated 8th May 2010 as also the letter dated 04th June 2010 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jamtara. 4. However, it is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the order impugned which is replete with all the allegations, the petitioner has been transferred back to Zila Parishad, Godda in the nature of punishment. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside. He has referred to Annexure-9 dated 15th March 2013 which is a correspondence between the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jamtara and Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara in relation to certain irregular activity alleged to have been carried out by the Chairman of Zila Parishad, Jamtara. He submits that the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad-cum-District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jamtara through his letter dated 31st July 2013 (Annexure-7) has also given information that the allegations made by one Shri Prabash Kumar Hembrom, member of Zila Parishad against the petitioner, are not prima facie established. Learned counsel has relied upon Annexure-10 dated 24th January 2013 and Annexure-11 dated 17th April 2013 being correspondences. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the order of transfer is stigmatic, it requires to be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction by this Court as the same has been done without establishing guilt of the petitioner in a proper enquiry. 6. Counsel for the respondent-Zila Parishad, Jamtara submits that pursuant to the impugned order, the petitioner has been relieved on 31st August 2013 before the interim order passed on 22nd October 2013 by this Court in the instant case. 6. Counsel for the respondent-Zila Parishad, Jamtara submits that pursuant to the impugned order, the petitioner has been relieved on 31st August 2013 before the interim order passed on 22nd October 2013 by this Court in the instant case. Learned counsel submits further that the petitioner should not complain as he was originally the employee of Zila Parishad, Godda and his services has only been returned back as there were certain complaints arising from different corners against him. Therefore, the order having taken effect, no interference is required in the impugned order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The petitioner as aforesaid undisputedly is an employee of Zila Parishad, Godda whose services were transferred from Zila Parishad, Godda to Zila Parishad, Jamtara vide annexure-1 dated 14th August 2010 in view of certain direction issued by the Panchayat Raj Directorate and also letters issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jamtara referred to therein. It further appears that the petitioner has been repatriated to the Zila Parishad, Godda by the impugned order in which certain allegations have been made relating to the discharge of duties by the petitioner. However, it is true that before issuance of the impugned order, the petitioner was asked to show-cause by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jamtara vide annexure-6 dated 27th August 2013. The petitioner upon issuance of the impugned order, is said to have been relieved from the Zila Parishad, Jamtara to his original place of posting i.e. Zila Parishad, Godda. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however produced a letter dated 21st November 2013 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Godda, as per which his joining is not being accepted by the Zila Parishad, Godda in the absence of any order of the State Government. Copy of the letter dated 21st November 2013 is kept on record. It appears that earlier transfer of the petitioner to Zila Parishad, Jamtara was on the basis of direction issued by the Directorate of Panchayat Raj. There appears to be no such direction issued by the Directorate of Panchayat Raj before issuance of the impugned order allowing the services of the petitioner to be repatriated to the Zila Parishad, Godda. 9. It appears that earlier transfer of the petitioner to Zila Parishad, Jamtara was on the basis of direction issued by the Directorate of Panchayat Raj. There appears to be no such direction issued by the Directorate of Panchayat Raj before issuance of the impugned order allowing the services of the petitioner to be repatriated to the Zila Parishad, Godda. 9. The impugned order which contains several allegations against the petitioner, on the face of it otherwise is stigmatic in nature. 10. In such circumstances, the impugned order issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jamtara seems to be punitive in nature and have been issued without prior approval or concurrence of the Directorate of Panchayat Raj and the petitioner's joining has also not been accepted by the Zila Parishad, Godda in the absence of clear direction from the State Government. In such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. However, it would be open to the respondent to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and if services of the petitioner are required to be repatriated to the Zila Parishad, Godda, it should be done with prior approval of the Directorate of Panchayat Raj. 11. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary of the petitioner has not yet been released after the impugned order of transfer. The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation before the Respondent No. 6 - Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jamtara who shall take a decision in that regard within a reasonable time. Order accordingly.