Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 988 (JHR)

Sita Ram Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2019-05-03

RAJESH KUMAR

body2019
ORDER : Heard counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for reviewing the order dated 04.07.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2673 of 2012. The plea has been raised by the petitioner referring to the Para 7(iv) of the writ petition that there is apparent error on the face of record. As co-ordinate bench of this Court has not interfered in the order of punishment presuming it to be minor while it was a major punishment. Para 7(iv) is quoted hereinbelow :- "7(iv). Now the question that falls for determination is as to whether the punishment awarded is just and proper or shockingly disproportionate to the alleged charges. Since the award of punishment is minor and the petitioner has been found guilty in the disciplinary proceeding by the Enquiry Officer, so the award of punishment appears to be quite justified and proportionate to the gravity of proven charges. Therefore, the doctrine of proportionality in the award of punishment is not remotely attracted in this case." 3. Further it has been submitted that the Original Authority had passed the order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, while the Appellate Authority has mentioned only stoppage of two increments. Thus, if the Appellate Order is considered then certainly in substance it is a minor punishment and it was the import of the impugned order dated 04.07.2016. 4. Counsel for the State has filed a counter-affidavit and it has been submitted that the Appellate Authority has merely upheld the order of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 5. From perusal of impugned order, as quoted above, it is evident that the Hon'ble Court has considered the words used by the Appellate Authority and accordingly the punishment has been considered as stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. Thus, the import of the judgment of this Court is clear that the Court has treated it as stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. Accordingly, the order stands clarified to that extent. 6. With the above observation and direction, the present Civil Review stands disposed of. Review disposed of.