Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 890 (JHR)

Gopi Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-20

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by respondent no.2 in departmental proceeding wherein the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement by the disciplinary authority and for direction to respondents for reinstatement in services with consequential benefits. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Clerk-cum-Typist in the year 1990 and was posted at Circle Office, Hariharganj District-Palamau, Jharkhand. In the year 1994, the services were confirmed by the competent authority. While the petitioner was posted at Latehar as an Assistant Clerk, he was placed under suspension by the respondent no.2 vide memo dated 05.11.2009 and he was transferred to Mahuwadand Block and his Head Quarter fixed at Mahuwadand Block. During suspension period he was not paid suspension allowances, the petitioner filed several representations but those representations failed on deaf ears. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice in the year 2010 through his Advocate thereafter, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by respondent no.2 and the inquiry officer was appointed and Land Acquisition Officer, Latehar was appointed as the inquiry officer vide memo dated 22.12.2010 and the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him. The respondent no.2 directed the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Latehar to conduct Medical Examination of the petitioner and to submit Medical Examination report vide letter dated 05.05.2011(Annexure-15) to the writ application and the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 20.05.2011 and got himself examined by the Medical Board after examination declared him fit for the job. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 issued 2nd show cause notice dated 25.06.2011 annexing for reply as evident from Annexure-17 to the writ application and the petitioner replied the 2nd show cause notice vide Annexure-18 to the writ application. The respondent no.2 passed an order dated 20.10.2011 of compulsory retirement to the petitioner with immediate effect vide memo no.582 dated 21.10.2011 as evident from Annexure-19 to the writ application. 3. Mr. The respondent no.2 passed an order dated 20.10.2011 of compulsory retirement to the petitioner with immediate effect vide memo no.582 dated 21.10.2011 as evident from Annexure-19 to the writ application. 3. Mr. Chandra Shekher Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent no.2 is without jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of the Jharkhand Service Rules 74(a) since the petitioner has not completed 25 years of his service or not attained the age of 50 years as per Rule 74(a) of the Jharkhand Service Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 2 failed to appreciate that the gravamen of the charges against the petitioner was that he misbehaved with his superior officer i.e. respondent no.3 is simply based on no evidence and the petitioner has been made scapegoat in connivance with official who are inimical to petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents are violatives of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the inquiry officer after getting the reply of the show cause, has directly submitted inquiry report dated 09.04.2011 to the respondent no.2 without taking any evidences of the complainant and eye witness of the incidents. Therefore, the petitioner has been grossly prejudiced by the act of the respondents and there has been breach of Principle of natural justice. On perusal of the inquiry report, nowhere it has been stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner is proved and the respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2011 clearly mentioned that all charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved in the enquiry proceeding and the impugned order shows the whimsical attitude of the respondent no.2. 4. Ms. Jyoti Nayan, J.C to G.P. IV has reiterated the submissions made in the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner while posted in the Sub Division Office, Latehar, remained absent from duty from 01.10.2009 to 19.10.2009 without any leave and the Sub Divisional Officer, Latehar directed the petitioner to apply for earned leave for the said absent period and after sanction of earned leave, payment would be made for the month of October, 2009. The petitioner started using unparliamentarily words and abusing the Sub Divisional Officer and assaulted the Sub-Divisional Officer by throwing the pen stand which caused injury on the palm and blood clotted in the hand. Just after the occurrence, the petitioner started abnormal activities and fell on the ground. After sprinkling water on him, he got up and again started abusing him. Then, the bodyguard and typist dragged him out from the office. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Latehar reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar for necessary action against the petitioner under Section 3(iii) of the Government Servant Conduct Rule vide Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide memo dated 05.11.2009 on the above mentioned charges with immediate effect and his headquarter was fixed at the Block Office, Mahuwadand during suspension period as per Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the charges and inquiry officer submitted his report on the basis of inquiry report of the conducting officer, a second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner directing him to submit show cause as to why major punishment should not be awarded to him since the charges against him proved and the learned Deputy Commissioner, Latehar examined the case throughly since the petitioner was found proved and as such the order of compulsory retirement udner Rule 74(A) of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 168 of the Jharkhand Board Miscellaneous Rule was passed vide memo dated 21.10.2011 vide Annexure-H to the counter-affidavit. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the evidences on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference due to reasons stated hereinbelow:- (i) In the case in hand, since the initiation of proceeding till its culmination, there has been no infraction of procedure nor the entire disciplinary proceeding is based on no evidence and charges were enquired into and the enquiry officer has found the charges against the petitioner proved. Therefore, the petitioner as per the Government Servant Conduct Rules 3(iii) is not fit to remain in service and the punishment of compulsory retirement, which has been passed by the respondents, is quite commensurate with the alleged proved charges and, therefore, this Court would not exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226. Therefore, the petitioner as per the Government Servant Conduct Rules 3(iii) is not fit to remain in service and the punishment of compulsory retirement, which has been passed by the respondents, is quite commensurate with the alleged proved charges and, therefore, this Court would not exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226. Moreover, this Court under Article 226 cannot reappraise the evidence/findings given by the disciplinary authority. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. And Others Vs. Raj Kishore Yadav And Another as reported in 2006 (5) SCC 673 at paragraph 4 which is quoted hereinbelow:- “4. It is settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed. “ 5. Viewed thus, the impugned order of punishment dated 20.10.2011 issued vide memo dated 21.10.2011 under Annexure-19 passed by the respondent no.2, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.