The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of v. Forest and Environment, Ranchi, Jharkhand
Case Details
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 6232 of 2016 …. Manoj Kumar Verma …… Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Versus Forest and Environment, Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi 3. The Regional Conservator o Forest, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Chatra Administration Division, Van Bhawan, Ranchi, Jharkhand 5. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation, Ranchi 6. The General Manager, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation, Hazaribagh 7. The Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Division, Garhwa 8. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand ----- …… Respondents
Legal Reasoning
16.01.2012 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W. P. (S) No. 5533 of 2003. It is submitted that before passing the order dated 18.06.2015, neither enquiry report was served nor show cause notice was given to the petitioner. It is further submitted that although the department has filed counter affidavit, but this fact has not been denied regarding service of notice and 2nd show cause notice and as such, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand may be set aside and this writ petition may be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Competent Authority after holding regular departmental enquiry and documents were furnished to the petitioner. However, it is submitted that the petitioner has caused loss of Rs. 78,548.33/- for the period 1989 to 1992 while he was working as Forest Range Officer in Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. It is further submitted that the petitioner was given an opportunity to file show cause after initiation of the departmental proceeding vide notification dated 07.12.2012. It is further submitted that documents, claimed by the petitioner, had already been supplied to him. -3- 5. From perusal of the counter affidavit, it transpires that earlier a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year 1992 for the loss caused to the department in the year 1989 to 1992. 6. It appears that vide resolution dated 19.06.2003, three increments were withheld with cumulative effect and Rs. 78,548.33/- with interest @ 18.05 % interest from the salary of the petitioner was ordered, out of which a sum of Rs. 40,635.62/- had already been adjusted and an amount of Rs. 2,01,391/- (Rupees Two Lacs One Thousands Three Hundred Ninety One) was directed to be recovered from the petitioner’s salary in monthly instalment of Rs. 3,356.50/-. Thereafter, the petitioner had challenged the same by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5533 of 2003. 7. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.01.2012, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had set aside the orders and had directed the respondents to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner from the stage of filing of show-cause after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. 8. Thereafter, it transpires from the another counter affidavit dated 05.11.2020 filed on behalf of the State-Respondent No. 8 therein that departmental proceeding was initiated vide notification dated 07.12.2012 as contained in Annexure-F and one Sri S. N. Trivedi was appointed as Inquiry Officer. In the meantime, a sum of Rs. 2,42,027/- was refunded to the petitioner, which was earlier recovered. It further appears from the counter affidavit that several dates had been fixed for holding departmental proceeding and some of documents could not be supplied to the delinquent officer as documents were more than twenty (20) years old and not relevant to the present case. It has also been stated that in the meantime, Inquiry Officer had retired on 30.06.2013 and Shri R. B. Singh, Chief Conservator -4- of Forest (CCF), Personnel (Gazetted) was appointed as new Inquiry Officer and Shri Bhagwan Mishra, Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda, State Trading Division, Chaibasa was appointed the Presenting Officer. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that although the petitioner had superannuated on 31.12.2013, but thereafter the departmental proceeding was continued in terms of Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 and accordingly, a Notification No. 1199 dated 11.03.2015 of the Department of Forest and Environment was issued. 9. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer had submitted its enquiry report on 22.01.2015 vide his office letter no. 28 dated 22.01.2015 and said inquiry report was carefully reviewed by the disciplinary authority and also the defence submitted by the delinquent officer in his show cause and found that the charges against the petitioner were proved in the inquiry report and penalty was imposed and no illegality was committed by passing the order dated 18.06.2015 and hence this writ petition may be dismissed. 10. From perusal of the notification dated 18.06.2015, it is evident that on the one hand, department has itself converted the departmental proceeding into the proceeding under Section 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 in the teeth of the direction of this Court vide order dated 16.01.2012 passed in W. P. ( S) No. 5533 of 2003. Apart from this, no reason has been assigned by the Authorities by issuing the notification dated 18.06.2015 by which direction has been given for recovery of Rs. 78,548.33/- along with interest @ 12 % per annum since 01.04.1992. Learned counsel for the State could not answer as to when the copy of inquiry report was served upon the petitioner. 11. It is well settled from the judgment reported in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another versus Chief Election -5- Commissioner, New Delhi and Others reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 that reasons cannot be assigned and furnished by filing the counter affidavit. 12. It is well settled from the catena of decisions that service of enquiry report is mandatory to the delinquent employee. 13. It has been held in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Versus B. Karunakar and Ors. reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727 that the supply of Enquiry Report is mandatory to the Delinquent Employee. 14. It is further evident that order passed by the respondent is a non-speaking order. 15. In this view of the matter, non-supply of documents and non-supply of enquiry report has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner to defend his case that too for the period 1989 to 1992. Even the Respondent-State has admitted in its counter affidavit at para-24 that some documents could not be furnished to the petitioner as some of the documents were twenty (20) years old. 16. Under the circumstances, the notification dated 18.06.2015 i.e. Annexure- 10 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand is set aside and amount recovered from the petitioner be refunded to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 17. Accordingly, this W. P. (S) No. 6232 of 2016 is allowed. Kamlesh/ (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the petitioner For the Resp. nos. 1 to 4 and 8: Mr. Nehru Mahato, AC to GP-IV For the respondent nos. 5 to 7 : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate ….. ORAL ORDER IN COURT 08/08.01.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 8 and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 7. 2. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.06.2015 i.e. Annexure-10 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand by which it has been informed that departmental proceeding was initiated vide notification no. 4963 dated 07.12.2012 and thereafter vide notification no. 5176 dated 30.12.2013 under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification Control And Appeal) Rules, the department proceeding was -2- converted under Section 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 and it has further been communicated in the light of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer by which it has been decided to recover Rs. 78,548.33/- @ 12 % per annum S.I. with effect from 01.04.1992 for the charges levelled against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no notice was issued to the petitioner before conducting any departmental proceeding pursuant to the order dated