Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 143 (JHR)

Ram Nath Prasad Shramik v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
Order : Grievance of the petitioner as initially made out in the writ petition is captured in the order dated 04.09.2015, which is quoted hereunder:- “It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on a charge relating to construction of certain Government Girls Primary School at Haidarnagar, petitioner was proceeded departmentally on issuance of charge sheet dated 09.10.2007 (Annexures-1&2) by the Director, Primary Education. After submission of his reply, petitioner has not been informed thereafter about any progress or final decision in the said departmental inquiry. Now, for the same event, he is again placed under suspension by the impugned order at Annexure-12 dated 18.08.2015 issued by the Director, Primary Education. Charge relates to the period of his posting as Block Education Extension Officer, Haidarnagar (North Palamau) and presently, he is working in the same capacity at Chhatarpur (West Palamau). There is apparently no rhyme or reason that for the charges in which he was sought to be proceeded departmentally in the year 2007, should once again be the basis to place him under suspension after eight years when he is not even serving at the said place. Learned counsel for the respondent State prays for sometime to obtain instruction and file counter affidavit. Accordingly, three weeks time is allowed. List the case after three weeks on 01.10.2015.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner had pointed out on the earlier date that charge-sheet has again been issued for proceeding against the petitioner vide memo no. 2378 dated 07.10.2015 issued by the Director, Primary Education, Ranchi Annexure-E to the counter affidavit of the respondent dated 26.11.2015, which in fact is repetition of charge contained in earlier departmental proceeding initiated on 09.10.2007 while adding few more charges therein. Charges relate to the period of his posting as Block Education Extension Officer, Haidarnagar (North Palamau) while he is presently working in the same capacity at Chhatarpur (West Palamau). 3. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there is apparently no rhyme and reason that for the same charges in which he was proceeded departmentally in the year 2007, he should be placed under suspension after eight years when he is not even serving at the said place. There is no justification for initiation of a fresh departmental enquiry in relation to the same charges which remain un-concluded for eight long years. 4. There is no justification for initiation of a fresh departmental enquiry in relation to the same charges which remain un-concluded for eight long years. 4. Counsel for the State after due deliberation with the respondents have filed supplementary counter affidavit thereafter, bringing on record order bearing no. 56 dated 18.01.2016, Annexure-A issued by the respondent no. 3, Director Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi. As per the instant order, earlier departmental proceeding bearing no. 2056 dated 09.10.2007 has been revoked. Proceeding initiated vide order no. 2378 dated 07.10.2015 pursuant to the direction passed by learned Division Bench of this court in W. P. (PIL) No. 4898 of 2006 in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. has been continued against the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after revocation of the earlier departmental proceeding, without any concrete outcome therein for eight long years and the fact that the petitioner is not even posted at the said place of posting at Haidarnagar (North Palamau), now there is no reason why his suspension vide impugned order dated 18.08.2015 bearing memo no. 1916 should continue for an indefinite length of time. This is also in teeth of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Another reported in AIR 2015 SC 2389 where Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly observed that upon issuance of charge memo, departmental proceeding should not continue beyond a period of 90 days. 6. Counsel for the State is not able to countenance the aforesaid legal submissions of the petitioner after issuance of charge memo in the present departmental proceeding on 07.10.2015 and that to when petitioner is not working at the place to which charges relate. 7. In view of the aforesaid conspicuous facts noticed, the impugned order of suspension bearing memo no. 1916 dated 18.08.2015, Annexure-12, does not seem to be sustainable in law as well as on facts and it is accordingly quashed. This Court is not required to make any comments upon the charge memo issued in the department proceeding initiated against the petitioner. However, in line with the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in such matters such as in the recent judgment in the case of Prem Nath Bali Vrs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Anr. This Court is not required to make any comments upon the charge memo issued in the department proceeding initiated against the petitioner. However, in line with the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in such matters such as in the recent judgment in the case of Prem Nath Bali Vrs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010 dated 16.12.2015 reported in 2015 SCC Online SC 1329 : 2016 (1) JLJR (SC) 308, it would only be appropriate that respondents should conclude the departmental proceeding in accordance with law within a reasonable time preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say petitioner shall cooperate in the Departmental Proceeding. If he fails to do so it would be open for the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary Authority to conclude the same ex parte. 8. The writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated hereinabove with the aforesaid direction.