Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 370 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. Kashi Nath Prasad

2016-02-22

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Virender Singh, J. [ I.A. No. 3853 of 2015] For the reasons carved out in the application, we hereby condone the delay, caused in filing the accompanied appeal. I.A. No. 3853 of 2015 stands disposed of, accordingly. [LPA No. 336 of 2015] 1. We ignore the defect No.4, as pointed out by the Registry and take up the main appeal on Board for its consideration, as other defects stand removed within the stipulated time in terms of the order dated 05.08.2015 of Registrar General. 2. State is aggrieved of the judgment/ order dated 22.01.2015, handed down in W.P.(S) No. 5290 of 2004, whereby the writ petition filed by contesting respondent-writ petitioner (for short 'the petitioner') stands allowed, whereby quashing the order contained in Memo No. 1793 dated 02.07.2004 vide which following punishment was imposed upon the petitioner: (I) Censure; (II) Stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and (III) He would be entitled for the payment of subsistence allowances during the period of suspension. 3. Heard learned State counsel, gone through the impugned order and the other relevant documents available on Writ Court record. 4. The petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him by serving him a memorandum of charge vide resolution contained in Memo No. 2180 dated 19.07.2003. The charge was that he without inspecting the site, prepared estimate and again by changing the estimate, work got started. He was put under suspension and departmental enquiry initiated against him. He submitted his detailed response before the inquiry officer also. The inquiry officer ultimately gave a finding on the charge which was, in fact, not the subject matter of the charge. The plea thus taken by the petitioner before the Writ Court was that punishment has been imposed upon him on the basis of the inquiry in which charge, which has been alleged against him, has not been found to be proved. Primarily, on this ground and on the strength of the provisions contained in Rule 167 (b) of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 the learned Writ Court has ultimately found the punishment slapped upon the petitioner being not sustainable, thus the order of punishment was quashed. 5. Primarily, on this ground and on the strength of the provisions contained in Rule 167 (b) of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 the learned Writ Court has ultimately found the punishment slapped upon the petitioner being not sustainable, thus the order of punishment was quashed. 5. We, for our satisfaction, have seen the inquiry report dated 27.01.2004 and found that what went against the petitioner is tendering two contradictory replies to the show-cause notice, which, in fact, was never the subject matter of the charge. Therefore, the inquiry report submitted against the petitioner runs contrary to the charges framed against him. 6. Rule 167 (b) of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, reads: “Details of charges.-Each charge must be specific. Charges should be drawn up and separately numbered and should give the date, occasion and nature of the offence committed. A copy of the charges should be given to the officer charged.” 7. In the case on hand, it is very clear that the order of punishment has been passed on the basis of the inquiry report, which dealt with altogether a different subject from the charge framed against the petitioner. In the said factual backdrop, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, calling for indulgence of the Court. The instant Letters Patent Appeal thus merits dismissal at this stage itself. Ordered accordingly.