The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5191 of 2014 ……. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary ... ... PETITIONER -V e r s u s - The State of Jharkhand The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of 1. 2. Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 3. Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi The Under Secretary, Water Resources Deaprtment, Government of CORAM: - THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ……. ... RESPONDENTS For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
petitioner had approached this Court in another writ petition. In the meantime, the petitioner was granted the benefit of 2nd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) vide Notification as contained in Memo No.6566 dated 2 06.11.2013. To utter surprise of the petitioner, a charge-sheet dated 27.12.2013 was issued, wherein it has been alleged that petitioner while holding the post of Under Secretary (Management) and being a member of Screening Committee had fraudulently obtained the benefit of MACP w.e.f., 13.09.2009 on 06.11.2013, though punishment awarded against him vide order dated 31.05.2010 was still in currency. Thereafter, after following the procedures in the department proceeding and after giving ample opportunity to defend his case, the respondents vide impugned order as contained in Memo No.2619 dated 13.08.2014, awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect and ban on promotion for one year and with a rider that he would not be entitled for any benefit during his suspension period except for the subsistence allowance, which is under challenge. 3. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 13.08.2014 on the ground that even if the minor punishment was awarded against the petitioner, but enquiry report was not served to the petitioner to defend his case. He further submits that impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking order and as such, same is not tenable in the eyes of law. He further submits that Rule 55 A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 has not been adhered to as before passing the punishment order, adequate opportunity to the delinquent employee has not been provided. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Ms. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in the year, 2013, the petitioner was posted as Under Secretary (Management), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and he incorporated his name in the list at Sl.No.114 and placed before the Departmental Screening Committee, which was held on 22.10.2013 and the Departmental Screening Committee in the light of the details placed before them and individual remark of each officer depending upon the merit of the case went through the proposal and put their recommendation/stay/rejection on the said list for individual officers. On getting the recommendation of the 3 Committee, the eligible officers were granted second MACP w.e.f. 13.09.2009 including the petitioner vide order dated 06.11.2013, concealing the fact that petitioner was found guilty and after departmental proceeding, punishment was awarded vide Order No.1688 dated 31.05.2010 and vide Order No.2955 dated 24.10.2011, wherein stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and further, his case shall not be considered for promotion for two years with due date of promotion as well as nothing will be paid during suspension period, except subsistence allowance, was inflicted. She further submits that from perusal of Minutes of Meeting of Departmental Screening Committee, it appears that petitioner had concealed the fact of punishment and also status of vigilance clearance for grant of benefit of 2nd MACP and as such, in absence of correct status of the vigilance clearance of the petitioner on the due date, the benefit of 2nd MACP was granted by the Screening Committee in favour of the petitioner. This was an act of breach of trust in performing the official duties by the petitioner and which amounts to grave misconduct under the provisions of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976. Accordingly, the departmental proceeding was initiated under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and thereafter, the benefit of 2nd MACP was cancelled and petitioner was punished with minor punishment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the departmental proceeding as well as impugned order as the punishment order is just and proper and adequate with respect to grave misconduct and breach of trust of the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made for interference on the ground that admittedly, the petitioner has been inflicted with minor punishment after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. The charges have already been proved in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner had concealed the fact of punishment and also the status of vigilance clearance for grant of benefit of 2nd MACP, this was an act of breach of trust in performing the official duties by the petitioner, which amounts to grave misconduct. There is no violation of Rule 55 A of the civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. Earlier also, the 4 petitioner had approached this Court, challenging suspension order in contemplation of departmental proceeding on the ground that he was not a member of Screening Committee, which granted the benefit of MACP, the same was disbelieved by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.7609/2013 and writ petition was dismissed. In this writ petition, the punishment arising out of same departmental proceeding was challenged on the same facts, which is not acceptable to this Court. 6. Further, nothing has been brought on record and argued by the petitioner that how the petitioner was pre-judiced by non-serving of enquiry report. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 7. Resultantly, writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. punit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Arguments
: Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate :Ms. Priyanka Boby, AC to Sr. SC-I .…… 07/ 15.03.2023 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.2619 dated 13.08.2014 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of Respondent No.3, by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect and ban on promotion for one year and also he would not be entitled for any benefit during his suspension period except for the subsistence allowances. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondent to post him at proper place as he is still ‘waiting for posting’ and for release of arrears of salary from August, 2014 and also current salary. 2. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar on 13.09.1989. Thereafter, he continuously worked to the satisfaction of the respondents. However, he was put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding vide order as contained in Memo No.2337 dated 29.06.2009 and accordingly, a charge-sheet was also issued and later on, he was imposed with major punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and also ban on of promotion for two years vide order as contained in Memo No.1688 dated 31.05.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the