Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 119 (JHR)

Krishna Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-18

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the notification bearing memo no. 1574 dated 2.7.2013 (Annexure-15) passed by the Special Secretary, Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand where under he has been imposed with the punishment of warning and the relevant punishment be recorded in his service book as well. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the notification bearing memo no. 1528 dated 21.7.2014 (Annexure-18) of the same department where under it has been held that petitioner would not be entitled to full salary except the subsistence allowance for the period 25.10.2011 to 11.1.2012, though the said period would be reckoned for the purpose of computing post retirement benefits. 3. Petitioner has superannuated w.e.f. 31.7.2013 itself and has also preferred another writ petition being W.P.S. 5019 of 2014, which is said to be pending before this Court. As it appear from perusal of the content of the writ petition and the documents enclosed that petitioner was proceeded under resolution bearing memo no. 1632 dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure-10) for certain charges including the appointment of two Computer Operators in violation of the departmental Rules and without approval of the competent authority. The 3rd charge related to distribution of blankets in the district of Palamau to the below poverty line persons in which substantial amount of the allotment were surrendered. Petitioner while posted as Assistant Director, Social Security Cell, Palamau also was placed under suspension by order bearing memo no. 1633 dated 25.10.2011, which was revoked vide order bearing no.30 dated 19.1.2012 (Annexure-12). The Enquiry Officer after conclusion of the enquiry found 2 charges against the petitioner established while in respect of 3rd charge, it was found to be partially proven for which the Deputy Development Commissioner was also found responsible in the enquiry report dated 2.4.2013 (Annexure-14). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the enquiry suffers from non-appreciation of the material adduced and guilt of the petitioner could not be finally established on the basis of material available before the Enquiry Officer. Punishment is wholly unwarranted and unjustified in the eye of law. Similarly, withholding of full salary for the period of suspension is wholly bad in law. 5. Punishment is wholly unwarranted and unjustified in the eye of law. Similarly, withholding of full salary for the period of suspension is wholly bad in law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State has relied upon content of the counter affidavit filed on their behalf to submit that case of the petitioner has been considered sympathetically in-spite of serious charges proved against him. He has only been given minor punishment of warning considering his impending retirement. Respondents are well within their jurisdiction to take decision in respect of salary for the period of suspension in view of the Rule 97 of Jharkhand Service Code. The impugned order of withholding of full salary except subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension is therefore wholly proper in the eye of law. Moreover, said period has also been counted for the purpose of retirement benefit. Therefore, prayer of the petitioner should not be entertained. 6. Considering the submission of the parties and relevant materials on record , this Court is also of the view that no interference is required to be accorded in the instant matter of minor punishment of warning upon the petitioner, imposed by the impugned order at Annexure-15 dated 2.7.2013, that too on the verge of his retirement on 31.7.2013. Two of the charges have been found to be established by the Enquiry Officer which were serious in nature. The disciplinary authority appears to have taken a sympathetic view in the matter keeping in regard the impending retirement. Therefore, on account of 2 charges fully proved and 1 partially proved, the order of punishment does not appear to suffer from illegality or lack of jurisdiction. It is also well within the domain of the disciplinary authority to take a decision on the question of withholding of fully salary except subsistence allowance on finding the guilt of the petitioner in the disciplinary enquiry for the period of his suspension. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed accordingly.