Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1207 (JHR)

Agnesh Monica Kachhap v. State of Jharkhand

2022-09-27

ANANDA SEN

body2022
JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. In this application, petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2016 whereby major punishment was inflicted upon him. Further Appellate order dated 5.2.2018 is also under challenge, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. In the disciplinary proceeding the petitioner was imposed with punishment of stoppage/forfeiture of three increments with cumulative effect and it was further ordered that petitioner will not be considered for promotion for next three years. Further a decision was taken that the petitioner will be entitled only for the subsistence allowance for the period he was kept under suspension. 3. The petitioner was the Bench Clerk of SAR Officer. The SAR officer also performs judicial work, as he is an authority under Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act dealing with land matters. He adjudicates issues in terms of Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. Nature of the work is Judicial in nature. 4. A charge-sheet was issued wherein an allegation has been levelled by the Deputy Commissioner that vide Letter No. 1015 dated 11.11.2013, the Deputy Commissioner issued a letter to the SAR Officer, intimating the said Officer that he will not take up any matter for adjudication which was not registered in the SAR Register. It is further alleged that the said SAR Officer took up 499 matters which were not registered in the SAR Register and disposed of the same. The allegation against the petitioner who happens to be the Bench Clerk of the said Officer is that this petitioner being the Peshkar assisted the SAR Officer in disposal of 499 cases. This is the only allegation against the petitioner. As these allegation was proved, the petitioner was punished. 5. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 427 and Union of India and Others vs. A.N. Saxena, (1992) 3 SCC 124 and submits that the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the mind of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. When an officer is performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions, disciplinary proceedings regarding any of his actions should be taken only after great caution and only if the circumstances warrants. When an officer is performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions, disciplinary proceedings regarding any of his actions should be taken only after great caution and only if the circumstances warrants. However if action of the officer indicates culpability i.e a desire to oblige himself or undue favour to one of the parties or an improper motive such an action can be taken. In this case petitioner being the Peshkar assisted the SAR Officer. His actions cannot be termed as culpable as he didn’t oblige himself or by his act gave undue favour to anyone. There is also no improper motive. 6. From the record I find that allegation against the petitioner is that he being the Peshkar assisted the SAR Officer in disposal of 499 cases. This aforesaid allegation against the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination can come within the purview of misconduct. The Bench Clerk has to act as per the direction of the Presiding Official. The Bench Clerk cannot direct the Presiding Officer, to get particular cases listed. The control lies with the Presiding Officer, who in this case is the SAR Officer. It is the SAR Officer on whose direction the cases get heard and disposed. 7. In the instant case the petitioner was a bench clerk of SAR Officer who was disposing of SAR cases in terms of the provisions of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The said SAR Officer judiciously disposes of SAR applications after hearing the parties. This petitioner has merely assisted the officer in placing the files and may be by recording the orders and progress of the cases etc. The Bench Clerk does not operate or works independently. When the SAR Officer himself heard 499 cases and disposed the same, the bench clerk has to assist the Presiding Officer concerned. For assisting the Presiding Officer for disposing of cases, the bench clerk cannot be held guilty of any misconduct more so when there is no specific allegation in the charge-sheet to suggest that he has obtained any illegal gratification or has been benefited for doing the same. The allegation aforesaid cannot be a misconduct. When an act is not a misconduct, no proceeding can be initiated against the petitioner. Consequently order dated 15.12.2016 and the Appellate order dated 5.2.2018 are hereby set aside and quashed. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits.