The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Aditya Raj W.P.(S). No. 2031 of 2022 ---------- Versus ………. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda. 5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. 6. The District Education Officer, Godda. 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda. 8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda. 9. The Executive Magistrate, Godda. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the State 06/ 06.07.2023 Heard the parties. ----------- : : ---------- Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate Ms. Ruhi Dubey, Advocate Ms. Piyushita Meha Tudu, AC to AAG-IV 2. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has thrown challenge to the order of termination dated 08.04.2022, by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect by respondent No. 5 on the basis of recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. Further prayer has made for reinstatement in service along with back wages. 3. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground to the post of Clerk vide Memo No. 412 dated 04.06.2014 by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana, Dumka as per the decision dated 13.11.2013 of the District Compassionate Committee, Godda under the provision laid down in Circular No. 13293 dated 05.10.1991 of Department of Personnel & Administration Reforms, Bihar, Patna and Circular No. 2228 dated 24.04.1995. Consequent thereto, he joined on 07.06.2014 and posted at the office of District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj. 2 Thereafter, he was transferred vide order dated 30.12.2016 to the office of the Sub-Divisional Office, Godda from the office of the DSE, Sahebganj on 11.02.2017. He was again transferred vide memo no. 572 dated 27.07.2020 from the office of the Sub-Divisional Office, Godda to the office of the DSE, Godda. 4. Thereafter as per the direction of the Respondent no.4 (Deputy Commissioner, Godda) vide memo no. 159 dated 24.02.2021 petitioner has been sent on deputation from the office of the DSE, Godda to the office of the District Law Branch, Godda with a direction to the controlling authority to relieve the petitioner on or before 26.02.2021. Vide memo no. 266 dated 26.02.21, petitioner was relieved and soon thereafter on 01.03.2021 petitioner gave his joining at the deputed place. Petitioner was deputed at the time of spread of Covid-19 for the supply of Oxygen Cylinder, usage and to track movement as per the order of the SDO, Godda issued vide memo no. 424 dated 20.04.2021. Thereafter vide memo no. 307 dated 07.05.2021 the Deputy Commissioner, Godda has again issued a direction and as per the said direction petitioner was deputed for the work known as District Oxygen Task Force, Godda during COVID -19 pandemic. 5. It is further submitted that again vide memo no. 569 dated 24.06.2021 petitioner was sent on deputation to the Utkramit Ucch Vidyalaya Thakurgangti (Godda) as Clerk and vide memo no. 557 dated 26.06.2021 petitioner has been relieved from the office of the District Law Branch, Godda. It is further submitted that after receiving the said order of deputation and relieving, the petitioner joined at deputed place on 28.06.2021. Vide memo no. 235 dated 26.06.2021 issued by the Sub - Divisional Officer, Godda in reference of letter no. 562 dated 22.06.2021 the Sub -Divisional Officer, Godda issued a notice to the petitioner with regard to complaint made by Mukesh Sah and Komal Kumar, alleging therein that he demanded money for releasing seized Vehicle Registered as BR10GA-8177 from the District Mining Office, Godda by the petitioner and the said notice has been served to the petitioner vide memo no. 773 3 dated 29.06.2021. After receiving of the notice, petitioner has submitted his detailed reply to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 02.07.2021. Thereafter, vide letter no. 336 dated 24.08.2021, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda submitted enquiry report to the Deputy Commissioner, Godda (Respondent no.4) in reference to letter no. 562 dated 22.06.2021 and in this report two persons have conducted enquiry against the petitioner and submitted opinion wherein it was clearly stated that there was no proof regarding demand of money by the petitioner from the complainant. 6. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 (the Deputy Commissioner, Godda) had issued notice vide memo no. 814 dated 5.10.21 asking explanation about the complaint filed by complainant with regard to release of the seized vehicle from the District Mining Office, Godda and petitioner has submitted his detailed reply to the Respondent No.4 on 08.10.21. It is further submitted that respondent no. 4 (the Deputy Commissioner, Godda) vide his memo no. 1040 dated 15.12.2021 again asked explanation from the petitioner regarding leaving of the office during office hours for releasing vehicle from the District Mining Office, Godda. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the respondent no. 4 (the Deputy Commissioner, Godda) on 21.12.21. Thereafter, vide letter no. 111 dated 25.01.22 the DSE, Godda has directed the petitioner to submit copy of the appointment letter and after receiving of the said letter, petitioner has submitted copy of his appointment letter before the DSE, Godda on 27.01.2022. 7. After receiving of the reply from the petitioner, Respondent No.4 (the Deputy Commissioner, Godda) has sent letter vide no. 64 dated 28.01.2022 to Respondent No.5 (The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka) and recommendation has been made for termination of the petitioner from service as per relevant provision of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016. After receiving the letter no. 64 dated 28.01.2022 from the respondent no.4 (the Deputy Commissioner, Godda), Respondent No.5 (The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka) has issued show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter no. 44 dated 4 03.02.2022 and vide letter no.51 dated 11.02.2022 and after receiving of the letter dated 11.02.2022 petitioner has submitted his detailed reply before the Respondent No.5 (The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka) on 15.02.2022. It is the specific case of the petitioner that only on the recommendation of Respondent No. 4 (The Deputy Commissioner, Godda), Respondent No.5 (The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka), petitioner has been terminated from the service with immediate effect. Aggrieved by said order of termination, the petitioner has knocked
Legal Reasoning
the door of this Court. 8. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that impugned order 08.04.2022 is not tenable in the eyes of law as the same has been issued without following the cardinal principle of natural justice. Even the charge-sheet has not been issued neither a regular departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner was appointed on 04.06.2014, on a fixed salary by way of compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submits that merely on the ground that in the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner has confessed his guilt, the order of termination is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that procedure of regular departmental proceeding has not been adhered to and merely because in the preliminary enquiry, there is finding against the petitioner, he cannot be held guilty of the charges unless, the same is proved in a regular departmental proceeding. Learned counsel further argues that the preliminary enquiry is a fact-finding enquiry to ascertain if there is sufficient grounds or materials to conduct a regular departmental enquiry. Learned counsel further argues that the cardinal principles of natural justice have been given a complete go-bye. In a case where the Disciplinary Authority proposes to award punishment of termination i.e. capital punishment, a full-fledged departmental proceeding is warranted, but in the instant case, there is no full-fledged departmental proceeding neither any 5 Enquiry Officer nor any Presenting officer has been appointed and also the petitioner was never given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of termination from the service with immediate effect is against the Service Rule as the termination of the Petitioner from service amounts to a major punishment under the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification Control and Appeal) Rule, 2016 and as per Rule 17 of the said Rules, no major punishment can be imposed upon a government employee without holding an enquiry in the manner provided under the Rules and the entire copy of articles of charge, list of documents, witness depositions and other relevant documents must be served upon the delinquent officer. Furthermore he must be accorded an opportunity to give his written statement of defence which must be taken into consideration during the hearing in disciplinary proceedings 9. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the following judgments: I) II)