Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1005 (JHR)

Sita Ram Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-04

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing order dated 15.04.2005 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh as well as order dated 17.01.2012 passed by Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments. 2. The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner while working as Clerk in the Mandu Circle Office, Mandu, it is alleged that on 26.04.1998, transfer of charge of office between the transferred Circle Officer and incoming Circle Officer was to take place, but the Circle Officer could not take charge as the petitioner was on leave. Basing on this along with other allegations, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 19.06.1998, in which charges were framed against the petitioner by letter dated 14.08.1998 by Circle Officer, Mandu. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the allegations on 22.12.1998 claiming himself to be innocent. Thereafter, enquiry officer was deputed, who submitted his report on 20.01.1999. Basing on the said enquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh by its order dated 02.09.2000 imposed punishment of reversion to his original post and scale, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal before Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Divison, Hazaribagh, who vide order dated 09.10.2001 dismissed the appeal. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, approached this Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No. 821 of 2002, which was disposed of in terms of order dated 15.04.2004 and the impugned orders dated 02.09.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and 09.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh were quashed on account of non-supply of copy of enquiry report to the petitioner as well as no chance of show cause against the report being given to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the order was passed by Hon'ble Court, the petitioner was supplied with copy of enquiry report and the petitioner was asked to file show cause by letter dated 04.06.2004, to which, he replied vide letter dated 17.06.2004 showing his innocence. It has been submitted that upon receiving the reply of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 17.09.2004 served a second show cause upon the petitioner asking for further clarification, reply to which was duly sent by the petitioner in letter dated 29.09.2004. It has been submitted that upon receiving the reply of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 17.09.2004 served a second show cause upon the petitioner asking for further clarification, reply to which was duly sent by the petitioner in letter dated 29.09.2004. It has been submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh without considering the evidences and reply submitted by the petitioner, only on the basis of enquiry report came to the conclusion that the petitioner's conduct was suspicious and charges against the petitioner are proved. It has further been submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal being Service Appeal No. 75/2005, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during pendency of the appeal, the petitioner retired on 31.07.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no proved misconduct against the petitioner and the petitioner in his reply has submitted that transfer of charge was to take place between the two circle officers and all the documents always remain in the office under the custody of Circle Officer and petitioner was on leave for two days, for which, he had already taken permission from the then Circle Officer and the petitioner was never on unauthorized leave. It has further been submitted that the period for which, it is alleged that the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly, the salary for the said period was paid by the department, so the allegation of unauthorized absence gets nullified. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have acted in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India by imposing penalty of reduction in rank by stopping two increments without any proof of the alleged misconduct on the part of petitioner. It has further been submitted that suspicion has been cast upon the petitioner of having supported the earlier Circle Officer in delaying the transfer of charge of incoming circle officer but the said Circle Officer has neither been made a party nor any departmental proceeding was ever initiated against him and the petitioner is only a clerk in the office and has been made scapegoat of the fight between the two officers. 6. 6. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted in Mandu Circle Office and was in-charge of Anchal Nazarat and was immediate custodian of cash-books and records. It has been submitted that the petitioner was intimated to remain present on 26.04.1998 with cash-books and records at the time of giving charge by the Anchal Adhikari (C.O) to notified Anchal Adhikari at his residence but he remained absent. It has been submitted that he remained absent from 26.04.1998 to 09.05.1998 without grant of leave. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that it was found that the entries in cash books are pending from 12.05.1998, hence, he was directed to remove defects and due to his inefficiency in performing work, he was directed to hand over charge of other work except of Nazarat to other assistants, which he did not do. Hence, the Circle Officer, recommended for taking action against the petitioner and for his transfer. Accordingly, enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report to Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Basing on such enquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh reverted the petitioner to original post and scale vide order dated 02.09.2000, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal, which stood dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that being aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 821 of 2002 and in compliance of order passed in the writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner re-considered the matter after supplying copy of enquiry report, recalled the earlier order and passed the order dated 16.04.2005 whereby stoppage of two increments was imposed upon the petitioner. 7. After having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and having given my anxious consideration to the documents available on record, the impugned order dated 15.4.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2 relating to infliction of punishment of stoppage of two increments and order dated 17.01.2012, do not warrant interference by this Court for the following reasons:- (i) Earlier against the punishment order of reversion to his original post, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 821 of 2002, which was disposed of and the impugned order was set aside on account of non-supply of copy of enquiry report to the petitioner. However, liberty was reserved with the respondents to pass fresh order after serving the copy of enquiry report to the petitioner and after giving a chance to the petitioner to file show cause. Pursuant thereto, the respondents after serving copy of enquiry report and after issuance of second show cause notice, adhering to the due procedure, has inflicted the punishment of stoppage of two increments basing on the findings of the enquiry report, which is impugned in the case at hand. (ii) Since the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges and disciplinary authority was well within its ambit and power to inflict punishment, the punishment of stoppage of two increments under the circumstances appears to be just and proper considering the gravity of misconduct and it appears to be in commensurate with the alleged proved charges. Therefore, on that count the impugned order of punishment do not call for any interference by this Court. (iii) In the instant case, the lacuna which was earlier pointed out in the proceeding has been cured by serving copy of the enquiry report, so there is no procedural irregularity. (iv) Now the question that falls for determination is as to whether the punishment awarded is just and proper or shockingly disproportionate to the alleged charges. Since the award of punishment is minor and the petitioner has been found guilty in the disciplinary proceeding by the enquiry officer, so the award of punishment appears to be quite justified and proportionate to the gravity of proven charges. Therefore, the doctrine of proportionality in the award of punishment is not remotely attracted in this case. 8. As a logical sequitur to the aforesaid reasonings, the impugned order of punishment dated 15.04.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh as well as order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, do not warrant any interference. 9. The writ petition sans merit is dismissed.