Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 884 (JHR)

Jag Narain Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-29

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The entire apprehension of the petitioner in respect of the impugned order dated 12.02.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-8) is that the Departmental Proceeding under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 vide Resolution dated 08.11.2006, is being continued after his retirement on 30.06.2008 from the post of Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, though no punishment can be imposed in terms of 1930 Rules after his retirement. However, there is no order of conversion of the Departmental Proceeding into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules. Petitioner has also approached for quashing of the Departmental Proceeding under Charge Sheet dated 08.11.2006 apart from challenging the order at Annexure-8. However, no grounds are urged in respect of the second prayer. 3. It is submitted that even though, proceedings would be deemed to have been converted under Rule 43(b) after his retirement assumingly, but the impugned order says that except change of Inquiry Officer through Resolution No. 8275 dated 17.07.2012, rest of the Departmental Inquiry would continue as it is. 4. In the sequence of facts borne out of the record, it appears that the petitioner came before this Court earlier challenging the Disciplinary Inquiry on the ground that it cannot be continued after his retirement. The writ petition being WPS No. 7183/2012 was disposed of by order dated 19.12.2012 (Annexure-1) by allowing him to raise such points of jurisdiction before the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority. Writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn. When the said issue was raised before the Inquiry Officer by order dated 08.01.2013 (Annexure-7), she opined that the proceedings are not maintainable under Rule 55 of 1930 Rules. The Disciplinary Authority however took a view that except change of Inquiry Officer, proceedings would continue as such. It is also submitted that criminal proceedings in respect of charges alleged in the Departmental Proceeding also have been quashed vide order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 2648/2012 and Cr. M.P. No. 788/2012, one of such judgments rendered in Cr. M.P. No. 788/2012 are enclosed as Annexure-4. It is submitted that except one of the charges, rest were overlapping in the Departmental Proceeding also. With this apprehension, petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application. 5. M.P. No. 2648/2012 and Cr. M.P. No. 788/2012, one of such judgments rendered in Cr. M.P. No. 788/2012 are enclosed as Annexure-4. It is submitted that except one of the charges, rest were overlapping in the Departmental Proceeding also. With this apprehension, petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application. 5. It however appears from considering the submissions of the parties that apprehension of the petitioner for continuance of the Departmental Proceeding on that ground is misplaced. Pension Rules do not lay down a procedure for conduct of Departmental Proceeding. If an employee has retired during the pendency of a Departmental Proceeding, the only difference that could result is in the nature of punishment which in that case, would be governed by the provisions of Jharkhand Pension Rules. Therefore, when the proceedings initiated at the time of his service did not end up finally before his retirement, they would be deemed to have continued after retirement of the petitioner. This proposition is also well settled by the Full Bench judgement rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Shri Krishna Singh versus Union of India [ 2001 (1) PLJR 665 ]. Counsel for the parties are not able to apprise the Court as to whether Departmental Proceeding has been concluded or whether Inquiry Officer has finally submitted his report. 6. Much time has elapsed since filing of the writ petition on 01.03.2013. In that event, the proper course would be to direct the Respondent Authorities/Disciplinary Authority to see that the Disciplinary Inquiry, if pending against the petitioner, is taken to its logical conclusion. Petitioner is expected to cooperate in the Departmental Proceeding, if not concluded by now. If he fails to do so, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed ex-parte against him and submit the Inquiry Report in accordance with law. The Disciplinary Authority after following the procedure relating to conduct of Departmental Proceeding and upon observance of the principles of natural justice, would take a final decision in the matter thereafter. Let Departmental Proceeding be concluded within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. There is no gainsaying that the Disciplinary Authority would be guided by the provisions of Jharkhand Pension Rules in the matter, if any punishment is to be imposed upon the petitioner on such decision. 8. Let Departmental Proceeding be concluded within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. There is no gainsaying that the Disciplinary Authority would be guided by the provisions of Jharkhand Pension Rules in the matter, if any punishment is to be imposed upon the petitioner on such decision. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly without interfering in the impugned order. I.A. Nos. 1635/2013 and 8536/2013 are closed.