Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1070 (JHR)

Gobardhan Singh Manki v. State of Jharkhand

2023-08-24

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 362(ii) dated 13.08.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no.3) whereby the petitioner has been inflicted punishment by withholding his two annual increments without cumulative effect and no other benefit to be given to him except subsistence allowance paid during his suspension period for the alleged irregularities committed by him in preparing the voter list of regional constituency of Sukurhutu North Panchayat, Kanke Block, Ranchi with respect to Panchayat Election 2010, which has also been affirmed by the Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) vide order dated 16.09.2014 passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 2. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was the ‘Panchayat Sewak’ of ‘Sukurhutu North Panchayat’ during the relevant period, was involved in preparation/correction of voter list of the said Panchayat on the oral instruction of Block Development Officer, Kanke (the respondent no. 4) as other ‘Panchayat Sewak’ namely Mohan Munda was not able to complete the said work. The petitioner tried to perform the said work with all sincerity, however since only four days were left for the said election, if at all any infirmity was found in the voter list, the same could not have been attributed to him particularly keeping in view that the voter list contained the names of as many as 4,531 voters. In fact, all the infirmities in the voter list as alleged in the memo of charge served to the petitioner were already rectified within the time and the election was conducted without any hinderance. 3. It is further submitted that though the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is minor in nature, yet the same is unwarranted as the charge framed against him was itself not proper due to which the respondent no. 4 had written letter no. 1637(ii) dated 07.02.2011 to the respondent no. 5 (the conducting officer) to exonerate the petitioner from the charges. 4. As against this, Mr. Zaid Imam, learned A.C. to S.C.-VII appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that since the petitioner did not obey the instruction of his superior authorities in preparation of the voter list with respect to the said Panchayat election, he was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. 4. As against this, Mr. Zaid Imam, learned A.C. to S.C.-VII appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that since the petitioner did not obey the instruction of his superior authorities in preparation of the voter list with respect to the said Panchayat election, he was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Four charges were framed against the petitioner, the first and the main charge was that during the Panchayat Election, 2010, he did not properly perform the work of splitting of the voter list of regional constituency concerning Sukurhutu North Panchayat. Rest of the three charges were related to the said first charge and all those charges were found proved during the inquiry conducted by the respondent no. 5, subsequent to which the disciplinary authority, i.e., the respondent no. 3, passed the impugned order as contained in memo no. 362(ii) dated 13.08.2013 inflicting minor punishment of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner and he was not to get any other benefit except the subsistence allowance paid during the period of suspension. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, despite paucity of time duly cooperated the superior authorities in preparation of voter list after he was involved in the said work on the oral instruction of the respondent no. 4 and therefore, initiation of departmental proceeding was itself unwarranted much less the punishment imposed on him. 7. Discipline and devotion towards work are the fundamental requirements of an administrative system. The controlling/disciplinary authority is well within its power to order initiation of departmental proceeding against an employee in a given situation. In the present case, the petitioner by merely contending that he had sincerely cooperated his superior authorities in preparation of voter list is not sufficient to infer that the initiation of departmental proceeding against him was unwarranted particularly in absence of any allegation of biasness against the authorities. 8. So far as interference with the disciplinary proceeding by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 , has held as under: “13. 8. So far as interference with the disciplinary proceeding by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 , has held as under: “13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 9. Moreover, in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, V.S.P. & Others Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 569 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “20. The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-known factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. (See Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal [ (2005) 2 SCC 638 ]; State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [ (2006) 12 SCC 561 ]; SBI v. Mahatma Mishra [(2006) 13 SCC 727]; State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi [ (2007) 11 SCC 681 ]; State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak [ (2008) 1 SCC 456 ] and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Devi [ (2008) 2 SCC 310 ].) 21. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1999) 1 SCC 259 ].) 22. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1999) 1 SCC 259 ].) 22. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment, overturn a legal order.” 10. It is thus a trite law that the High Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to reappreciate the evidence and to interfere with the conclusion of the inquiry officer if the same has been done in accordance with law. The Court has mainly to see as to whether the inquiry proceeding has been conducted against the delinquent in fair and transparent manner. 11. Coming back to the present case, four charges were framed against the petitioner for the alleged indiscipline and dereliction of duty, which are as follows: (i) For three-tier Panchayat Election, 2010, the splitting work of voter list of regional constituency of Sukurhutu North Panchayat, Kanke Block, Ranchi was not properly done by him; (ii) Due to incorrect splitting of the voter list, six voters belonging to member of Scheduled Tribe and one belonging to Backward Class of other regional constituency were wrongly included in the regional constituency no. 6, Sukurhutu North Panchayat which resulted in hampering of election process; (iii) In spite of clear direction, members’ name of the same family was not kept at one place due to which rightful voters faced problems in nomination as well as law and order situation arose; (iv) It is evident that the petitioner did not take the election work seriously as he executed his official duty carelessly which shows indiscipline as well as disobedience of orders. 12. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the respondent no.5. On perusal of the inquiry report dated 02.07.2013 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), it appears that the petitioner was provided due opportunity to defend all the charges framed against him and on consideration of his defence as well as the response of the respondent no. 4, the respondent no. 5 found all four charges proved against him. Based on such finding of the respondent no. 4, the respondent no. 5 found all four charges proved against him. Based on such finding of the respondent no. 5, the disciplinary authority, i.e., the respondent no. 3, vide impugned order as contained in memo no. 362(ii) dated 13.08.2013, imposed minor punishment of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect against the petitioner and he was not to get any other benefit except the subsistence allowance paid to him during the suspension period. 13. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case of procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry proceeding. Moreover, the impugned punishment is also not shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of punishment as contained in memo no. 362(ii) dated 13.08.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.