IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1360 of 2004
Kali Charan Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.The Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Hazaribagh Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Piperwall, Advocate
For the Respondents: JC to Sr. SC-II
---
07. 11.01.2010
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated
25.09.2003 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent no. 3, who being the Disciplinary
Authority of the petitioner, has imposed punishment upon the petitioner by way of
censure and also by way of non-payment of petitioner’s salary for the suspension period
except the payment of subsistence allowance.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though, on the basis of the charge, he was
proceeded against, but the Inquiry Officer who had conducted inquiry, had recorded his
findings at the conclusion of the inquiry that the charge was not proved against the
petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority despite such report of the Inquiry Officer, has
proceeded to impose punishment against the petitioner by differing with the findings of
the Inquiry Officer. It is submitted that before proceeding to impose the punishment, the
petitioner was neither served with any show-cause notice assigning reasons as to why has
the Disciplinary Authority sought to differ from the findings of the Inquiry Officer and
affording opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to why the proposed punishment
should not be imposed against the petitioner.
The further grievance of the petitioner is that on account of the aforesaid
punishment, the petitioner had retired way back on 31.7.2004, but till date, his retiral
dues have not been paid to him.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken
by the respondents is that though in the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the
inquiry report, charges were not proved against the petitioner, but the inquiry report on
being placed before the appropriate authority, the finding therein was not accepted and
the Disciplinary Authority had proceeded to inflict punishment of censure against the
petitioner. It is further submitted that since the punishment imposed is not a major
punishment, there is no requirement of serving a second show-cause notice to the
delinquent employee.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and having gone through the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that admittedly, the Inquiry Officer has
not found the charge proved against the petitioner. Yet, the Disciplinary Authority had
sought to differ from the findings and proceeded to inflict punishment upon the
petitioner.
6. Counsel for the respondents has not furnished any such Rule of procedure
whereby the requirement of serving a show-cause notice upon the delinquent employee
before proceeding to inflict punishment after differing with the findings of the Inquiry
Officer, has been omitted or held as not required even in cases where the proposed
punishment is not a major punishment.
7. It is settled principle of law that where the findings as recorded in the inquiry
report appears to be in favour of the delinquent employee and are sought to be differed
by the Disciplinary Authority, then it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to
issue a show-cause notice to the proceedee assigning reasons for differing with the
findings and calling upon the delinquent employee to submit his explanation as to why
the proposed punishment should not be imposed against him. This having not been done
in the petitioner’s case, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and also against
the principles of service jurisprudence.
8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order 25.9.2003 (Annexure-8) passed
by the respondent no. 3, is hereby set aside. Since the petitioner had already
superannuated from service, the respondents shall assess and compute the amounts of
retiral benefits to which the petitioner is entitled and sanction the amounts for payment
to the petitioner and ensure that the payments are made to the petitioner within a period
of four months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
Ranjeet/