Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 300 (JHR)

Sita Ram Rao v. State of Jharkhand

2018-02-05

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
ORDER : Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma. learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to G.P.-IV for the respondents. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the decision dated 4.5.2013 taken by the Establishment Committee whereby the petitioner has been deprived of being granted the monetary benefits of the 1 st ACP. A further prayer has been made by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to provide monetary benefits of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme to the petitioner for the period prior to passing of punishment order no. 770(11) Establishment dated 25.7.2001. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Revenue Karmchari at Sisai Circle on 27.10.1978. The petitioner superannuated from service on 30.6.2013 as a Revenue Karmchari. While the petitioner was posted as Revenue Karmchari. Ghaghra he was served with an office order by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla wherein he was put under suspension for creating false Jamabandi with respect to 1.03 acres of Gair Majarua Malik Land appertaining to Khata No. 108, Plot No. 1211, Mouza Saldega in the name of Vidya Devi and three others. 4. An inquiry was conducted by the District Panchayati Raj Officer in which the petitioner was found guilty and was punished vide order dated 25.7.2001 by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla by stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect as also debarment of future promotion. 5. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi which however was dismissed. The petitioner preferred a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 5671 of 2002 in which the matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority since the petitioner was not supplied with the inquiry report and the Disciplinary Authority was further directed to proceed in accordance with law and conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of six months. However. after remand the Disciplinary Authority did not interiere in the punishment order passed by him earlier which attained finality. 6. The petitioner' submitted a representation for grant of 1st ACP w.e.f. 9.8.1999. An instruction was sought for by the Establishment Committee from the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand and subsequent thereto a decision was taken un 4.5.2013 refusing to grant monetary benefits to the petitioner on account of 1st A.C.P. which the petitioner has challenged in the present application. 7. An instruction was sought for by the Establishment Committee from the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand and subsequent thereto a decision was taken un 4.5.2013 refusing to grant monetary benefits to the petitioner on account of 1st A.C.P. which the petitioner has challenged in the present application. 7. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of punishment passed against the petitioner was dated 25.7.2001 and the benefits of the 1 st A.C.P. accrued to the petitioner on 9.8.1999 which was before the order of punishment and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the monetary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Resolution dated 18.2.2012 to substantiate such contention. 8. Learned J.C. to G.p. IV for the respondents has relied upon the counter affidavit and has submitted that since the period for which the petitioner was handed over a departmental punishment was prior to the eligibility of the petitioner for grant of 1 st A.C.P. therefore the petitioner was not entitled for the said benefit. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it appears that the A.C.P. scheme was introduced in the year 2002 and the primary consideration for grant of A.C.P. was with respect of such persons who have not been given cadre promotion and have already completed 12/24. years of regular and satisfactory service. The petitioner seems to have been proceeded in the departmental proceeding on account of some irregularities committed with respect to a Plot of land while the petitioner was posted as Revenue Karamchari in Simdega Anchal during the period 1986-87 to 1992-93. The petitioner had got Gair Majarua Malik Land registered in the name of his wife Vidya Devi and three others. The State Government had come out with a Resolution No. 13110 dated 16.12.1998 in which it was clearly envisaged that if a Government Servant is given a punishment which includes stoppage of increment or financial punishment in such circumstance its effect would be during the period for which such punishment had been given. However, in the Resolution dated 18.2.2012 a decision was taken that any punishment which would financially affect the Government Servant would be applicable from a prospective effect. However, in the Resolution dated 18.2.2012 a decision was taken that any punishment which would financially affect the Government Servant would be applicable from a prospective effect. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner who became entitled for the 1 st A.C.P. prior to his date of punishment would not be entitled for its benefits in view of the Resolution dated 18.2.2012. Therefore, the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 4.5.2013 does not seem to be on proper appreciation or consideration of Resolution dated 18.2.2012. The case of the petitioner deserves fresh consideration by the authorities concerned. 10. In view of the aforesaid, therefore, the impugned order dated 4.5.2013 by which the Establishment Committee had refused to grant monetary benefits of the 1st A.C.P. to the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appropriate authority to take a fresh decision in the matter based on the Resolution dated 18.2.2012 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The exercise as indicated above should be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. This writ application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.