Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1151 (JHR)

Chandradeo Das v. State of Jharkhand

2023-09-14

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no.629/Ra. dated 12th July, 2016 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara-respondent no.3, whereby three punishments have been imposed against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint being SMVAD/P/2015/12446 was made on 28.08.2015 through Mukhyamantri Jan Samvad Kendra, Jharkhand, Ranchi by some unknown persons against the petitioner alleging that the government land appertaining to Mouza – Dalabar, Thana No.21, Khata no.57, Plot No.524, measuring an area of 26 acres; and plot no.3 measuring an area of 5.26 acres were being cultivated by Mahavir Mandal, Bahadur Mandal, Ajit Mandal, Pradip Mandal, Radheshyam Mandal and Anand Mandal in connivance with the petitioner, a revenue clerk of Nala Circle. Thereafter, the respondent no.6 made an inquiry on the said complaint as per instruction of the higher authorities and submitted inquiry report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara-respondent no.5 vide letter no.1047/Ra. dated 11.09.2015 observing that the allegation made against the petitioner was found false and fabricated. In the meantime, the petitioner got the government land measured by a private amin and submitted report to the respondent no. 6 on 07.09.2015 mentioning that 20 persons had illegally occupied the government land of the said Khata measuring an area of 3.39 acre of plot no.524 and measuring an area of 3.50 acres of plot no.3. On the basis of the report of the petitioner, the respondent no. 6 vide notice as contained in memo no.1205 dated 06.11.2015 restricted 22 persons from harvesting paddy in the aforesaid land. 3. It is further contended that the respondent no. 6 submitted his enquiry report on 23.01.2016 before the respondent no. 3 stating that the encroachment made over the said land had been freed and the allegation made against the petitioner was false and baseless. Moreover, the said land had been freed from encroachment. However, the respondent no.3 suspended the petitioner and issued an order for initiating departmental proceeding against him vide memo no. 69/Ra dated 27.01.2016. Further, the respondent no. 6 was directed to frame charge against the petitioner in Form-A and to place the same in four copies to the Additional Collector, Jamtara through the respondent no.5. The Additional Collector was appointed as conducing officer (enquiry officer) and the Circle Officer, Nala-respondent no.6 as presenting officer. 69/Ra dated 27.01.2016. Further, the respondent no. 6 was directed to frame charge against the petitioner in Form-A and to place the same in four copies to the Additional Collector, Jamtara through the respondent no.5. The Additional Collector was appointed as conducing officer (enquiry officer) and the Circle Officer, Nala-respondent no.6 as presenting officer. However, subsequently vide order as contained in memo no.314 dated 17.03.2016 issued by the respondent no.3, the respondent no.4 was appointed as conducting officer and the Respondent no.6 was appointed as presenting officer. The petitioner was served with a memo of charge in Form-A which was replied by him stating that he was in-charge of Halka nos.3 and 4 covering 07 village panchayat and 77 revenue villages, which was a big area, however, as soon as he got information about encroachment over the said land, he took quick action and submitted his report before the respondent no.6 on the same day. 4. It is also submitted that the conducting officer concluded the departmental proceeding and opined that the allegation against the petitioner was not found proved. He, however, observed that the petitioner committed delay in informing the matter to senior officers and hence he might be imposed any one of the punishments under rule 168(1)(a) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules, 1958’) by revoking his suspension. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order dated 12.07.2016 imposing three punishments upon the petitioner i.e. (i) censure; (ii) forfeiture of one increment with non-cumulative effect; and (iii) not to get any other benefit except subsistence allowance paid during the period of suspension. Thereafter, the petitioner was released from the suspension. The manner in which the impugned punishment was imposed upon the petitioner is highly arbitrary and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that some of the villagers were found cultivating “Puratan Patit land” i.e. the government land since long without any settlement and the petitioner being the field official of the government committed huge delay in reporting the same to the senior officers, which suggested negligence on his part in discharging his duty honestly. As such, the impugned order of punishment has been rightly passed against the petitioner after following due procedure of law and the same does not require any interference of this court. 6. As such, the impugned order of punishment has been rightly passed against the petitioner after following due procedure of law and the same does not require any interference of this court. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. Specific charge against the petitioner was that he in connivance with few persons, namely, Mahavir Mandal, Bahadur Mandal, Ajit Mandal, Pradip Mandal, Radheshyam Mandal and Anand Mandal permitted them to use the land appertaining to Mouja Dalabar, Dag no.524, measuring an area of 26.00 acres and Dag no.3, measuring an area of 5.26 acres, which were “Puratan Patit Land” (i.e. government land) for agriculture purpose and the petitioner used to realise Rs.50/- per day from them. 8. The respondent no.4-the enquiry officer, during enquiry, did not find the charge against the petitioner proved, however, it was observed in the enquiry report that the petitioner committed delay in communicating the actual fact to the senior officers due to which the said situation arose and, therefore, he was partly found guilty and a recommendation was made to impose any one of the punishments under Rule 168(1)(a) of the Rules, 1958 however, with further recommendation to revoke his suspension. 9. This Court is of the view that once the charge against the petitioner was not found proved by the enquiry officer, making further observation in the enquiry report regarding the delay committed by the petitioner in communicating the actual fact to the senior officers leading to the said situation, was completely unwarranted. If the charge framed against the petitioner was not found proved, the enquiry officer had no jurisdiction to travel beyond the charge and make any further observation or recommendation in that regard. The department having failed to prove the charge against the petitioner, he deserved to be exonerated from the charge unless the disciplinary authority was of any other view based on the materials available on record and had followed the due procedure thereafter. 10. However, in the present case, in absence of any such material on record, the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose impugned punishment against the petitioner mechanically merely relying upon the recommendation of the enquiry officer ignoring the fact that during the said enquiry the charge against the petitioner was not found proved. 11. 10. However, in the present case, in absence of any such material on record, the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose impugned punishment against the petitioner mechanically merely relying upon the recommendation of the enquiry officer ignoring the fact that during the said enquiry the charge against the petitioner was not found proved. 11. That apart, the petitioner was also not served with the inquiry report so as to afford opportunity to him to respond the recommendation made by the enquiry officer which was heavily replied upon by the respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order of punishment and as such the same also vitiates in law on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 12. Under the said circumstance, the impugned order of punishment as contained in memo no.629/Ra. dated 12th July, 2016 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara-respondent no.3 is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.