C.W.J.C. No. 3156 of 1999 (R)
...
[In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India]
…
Satyendra Kumar ... ... Petitioner
V e r s u s
1. The State of Bihar
2.The Deputy CommissionercumChairman, District Rural
Development Agency, Hazaribagh
3. The Deputy Development CommissionercumVice Chairmancum
Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency, Hazaribagh
4. The Director (District Rural Development Agency), Hazaribagh
5. The Joint Director, Agriculture, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh
6. Deputy Secretary, Chief of Vigilance, Agriculture.
... ... Respondents
...
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate
For State of Jharkhand : Mr. R.R. Mishra, Advocate
…
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
…
By court: In view of statement made in I.A. No.1896 of 2006, prayer of
amendment is allowed and the aforesaid interlocutory application
will become part and parcel of this writ application.
2. It is submitted by Sri Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner was suspended in the year
1996 and a departmental proceeding initiated against him.
However, when no order passed in the said departmental proceeding,
though enquiry had already concluded, petitioner filed a writ
application vide C.W.J.C. No.400 of 1998 and said writ application
disposed of vide order dated 15.03.1999, directing the respondent to
pass final order in the departmental proceeding after serving a copy
of inquiry report on the petitioner. It appears that in compliance of
aforesaid order, vide Annexure 15, inquiry report served upon the
petitioner. The said inquiry report is annexed as Annexure 16.
3. It is submitted that from perusal of inquiry report, it appears
that the Enquiry Officer (Respondent No.5) exonerated petitioner
from all the charges leveled against him. It is submitted that by
Annexure 17, the respondentState differed from the findings of
inquiry report and said that on reconsideration of materials charge
nos. 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 have been found proved against
petitioner. It is submitted that no reason assigned by the respondent
State for differing with the findings of Enquiry Officer. Thus, finding
of the respondentState cannot be sustained.
2.
4. Learned G.P.II, appearing on behalf of State of Jharkhand, has
stated that from perusal of inquiry report (Annexure 16), it appears
that charge nos. 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 have been decided in
favour of petitioner, but the State Government, after reconsidering
the same, came to the conclusion that the said charges are proved. It
is submitted that the State Government has got power to differ from
the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, he submits that
there is no illegality in the order.
5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record
of the case. It is well settled principles of law that disciplinary
authority has powers to differ from the findings of Enquiry Officer,
but he can do so after giving reason for the same.
6. From perusal of Annexure 17, I find that the State
Government, who is disciplinary authority of petitioner, has not given
any reason for differing from the findings of Enquiry Officer on
charge nos. 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17.
7. Under the said circumstance, aforesaid finding given by the
State Government cannot be sustained. Consequently, decision of
the State Government for deducting 15% pension of the petitioner
cannot be sustained.
8. In view of aforesaid discussion, Annexure 17 is hereby quashed
and respondents are directed to pay full pension to the petitioner
from the date of his retirement. Petitioner is also entitled to get his
salary during the period he was under suspension as per Jharkhand
Service Code.
9. So far another prayer of petitioner that a direction may be
given to pay Rs.800/ per month as house rent is concerned, it is
stated that no foundational fact stated in the writ application for the
same. Hence, that prayer made by the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Prashant Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 07.07.2011
R.K./ NAFR