Gopi Nandan Prasad v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5292 of 2014 Gopi Nandan Prasad … Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C., Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 3.The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C., District- Ranchi 4.The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, District-Palamau ---------- … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate Ms. Sharon Kerketta, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, AC to GP-II ----------- 09/ 08.02.2024 At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for quashment of order dated 08.09.2014 at (Annexure-9) issued by the respondent no.3. 2. Briefly stated, while the petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Hussainabad, a letter was issued on 22.07.2008 seeking explanation within a fortnight for the charges framed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. Thereafter not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, departmental proceeding was initiated by issuance of praptra “Ka”. In the enquiry, petitioner was exonerated from the charges. However, the disciplinary authority without differing with the finding of the enquiry office inflicted punishment which was subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(S) No.2863 of 2012 at Anneure-7 page 50. This Court vide order dated 10.01.2014 quashed the order of punishment and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to start with the proceeding afresh from the stage of issuance of second show-cause notice as though second show-cause notice was issued, the same was issued without assigning any reasons for differing with the inquiry report. Thereafter a fresh proceeding was initiated second show-cause notice was issued. The disciplinary authority thereafter finding the reply of the petitioner not satisfactory inflicted the order of punishment which is dated 08.09.2014 which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order argues that impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law for the reasons that earlier the same was quashed and set aside by this Court and matter was remitted back to the respondents for taking fresh decision after issuance of fresh 2nd show- cause. However, from perusal of two show-causes issued by the respondents, it appears that there is hardly any difference and without assigning any cogent reasons fresh 2nd show-cause notice has been issued. Learned counsel further submits that earlier this Court was of the view that without assigning reasons, it is not open for the disciplinary authority to differ with the enquiry report. It has further been argued that there is no quarrel to the fact that disciplinary authority has the power to differ with enquiry report but simultaneously he has to assign cogent reasons. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 and Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharastra & Anr. Reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739. Learned counsel further
Decision
submits that on this score itself the writ petition is fit to be quashed and set aside as earlier on the same ground the order was remitted back. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State opposing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is fully justified, reasons have been assigned and nothing more was required at the time of issuance of second show-cause notice. The respondents have in due respect to the orders of this Court have followed the procedures and there is no wrong in issuance of second show-cause notice which also find reasons for differing with the enquiry report. Learned counsel further submits that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. The punishment order is fully justified. 5. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that before delving deep into the matter it would be deposit to examine the observations and directions issued by this Court earlier while disposing of the W.P.(S) No.2863 of 2012 vide order dated 10.01.2014 at para-7 of the said order is quoted hereinunder:- “7..Perusal of second show-cause notice indicates that during the departmental proceeding, evidence in support of charge nos.2 and 3 was brought on record and therefore, the disciplinary authority decided to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The law on the -3- issue is well settled. The disciplinary authority when decides to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, is under a duty to record reasons for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. In the present case, it is not indicated from the second show-cause dated 14.03.2012 that what is the evidence which was erroneously not considered by the enquiry officer and therefore, the disciplinary authority decided to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. Merely stating that there is evidence in support of the charge is not sufficient. Unless specific evidence is brought to the notice of the delinquent employee, he would not be able to make an effective representation. The second show- cause notice dated 14.03.2012 does not indicate any other ground, for disagreement with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and therefore, I am of the opinion that the final order dated 17.04.2012 cannot be sustained in law.” There was specific observation and directions by this Court but surprisingly the same view has been reiterated in the second show-cause notice, which is not accepted to this Court. It appears that disciplinary authority has flouted the orders of this Court and no reasons has been assigned, the stand of the respondent-State is not accordance with law and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents-State is not at all accepted by this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739 in para-31 has observed thus:- 31. “....... If the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are in favour of the delinquent and it has been held that the charges are not proved, it is all the more necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before reversing those findings. The formation of opinion should be tentative and not final. It is at this stage that the delinquent employee should be given an opportunity of hearing after he is informed of the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority has proposed to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer. This is in consonance with the requirement of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as it provides that a person shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. So long as a final decision is not taken in the matter, the enquiry shall be deemed to be pending. Mere submission of findings to the disciplinary authority does not bring about the closure of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceeding would come to an end only when the findings have been considered by the disciplinary authority and the charges are -4- either held to be not proved or found to be proved and in that even punishment is inflicted upon the delinquent. That being so, the “right to be heard” would be available to the delinquent upto the final stage......” Further in Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84, page-17 it has been held as under:- 17. “..... The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can made a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority.” 6. It is bounded duty of the disciplinary authority before differing with the report of enquiry officer to assign cogent reasons. The same thing has not done in the instant case in spite of earlier direction of the Court issued in W.P.(S) No.2863 of 2012. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations and judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 08.09.2014 at (Annexure-9) issued by the respondent no.3 is fit to be quashed and set aside. 8. 9. Petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Rohit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)