The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2829 of 2020 Prabhat Kumar Nayak … Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Forest & Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited, 177/C, Road No. 4, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi 4. The Managing Director – cum – Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited, having its office at 177/C, Road No. 4, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi 5. The General Manager – cum – Conservator of Forest, Forest Development Corporation, Circle Ranchi, having its office at Ranchi. 6. The Divisional Manager – cum – DFO, Forest Development Corporation Limited, Forest Division, Ranchi. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents For the R. No. 3 to 6
Legal Reasoning
:Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate :Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to GA-V :Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate 10/12.10.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties. 2. Petitioner has knocked door of this Court assailing office order no. 77, dated 21.08.2017 (Annexures-16) issued by respondent no. 4, modified order of punishment bearing office order no. 83, dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure-17) and office order no. 22, dated 30.05.2020 (Annexure-19) whereby further punishment has been inflicted against him. 3. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as a Range Forest Officer and served in different parts of the State. While posted at Simdega, certain incidents took place and loss of government exchequer was reported. Petitioner, being the Range Forest Officer, tried his best for recovery of loss amount to the government exchequer and subsequently FIR was also lodged by him for the alleged theft. Pursuant to report of General Manager, submitted vide letter no. 98, dated 19.02.2013, action of the petitioner was found to be justified. However, pursuant to letter RC 2 no. 764, dated 03.04.2013, show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner for alleged failure in his supervisory function of the Range leading to theft. Thereafter, petitioner asked for relevant documents to file effective reply which was however not supplied to him and pressure was mounted to file reply. The reply filed by the petitioner was not considered nor petitioner was supplied necessary documents defend the allegations levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer, without conducting any enquiry, without exhibiting any documents and without examining any witnesses appears to have, submitted the enquiry report to the Managing Director behind back of the petitioner and on the basis thereof, the Managing Director, vide his Office Order No. 77, dated 21.08.2017 (Annexure-16), passed order of punishment without supplying the enquiry report and without issuing second show-cause thereof. Thereafter, another modified order of punishment vide office order no. 83, dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure-17) was served upon the petitioner whereby the second punishment was increased to the extent that in case of insurance claim is repudiated, the recovery will be 50% of the total amount of loss as determined in departmental proceeding. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the PCCF vide letter dated 28.05.2020 (Annexure-18)for reconsideration of entire matter. However, pursuant to impugned office order no. 22, dated 30.05.2020 (Annexure- 19) the Divisional Manager (Forest Development Corporation, Ranchi) passed follow-up order and unilaterally determined total loss amount of Rs.1,85,00,286/- by saying that Insurance Company repudiated/rejected the claim. The 50% of the loss amount i.e. to the tune of Rs.92,50,143/- was assessed and a direction was passed to recover Rs.25,000/- per month from salary of the petitioner. Petitioner filed another protest before the APCCF – cum – Managing Director, dated 17.06.2020 with a request to annul impugned orders. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that the same has been issued dehors the rule. The ingredients of departmental proceeding has not at all been considered by 4. RC 3 the disciplinary authority while issuing the order of punishment. Learned counsel further argues that the law is well settled rather it is sine qua non that without serving a copy of the departmental enquiry report along with second show-cause notice, it is not open to the disciplinary authority to inflict any punishment. Learned counsel further argues that disciplinary authority exceeded the jurisdiction by reassessment of the punishment order. It has further been argued that this is a case of no evidence. Action of the respondents is in violation of Rule 55 of the C.C. & A Rules, which mandates memo framing charge to be mandatorily accompanied with statement of imputation, the separate statement of list of oral witnesses so as to make charges unspecific and unambiguous. Petitioner has been harassed unnecessarily and has been debarred of benefits of pay revision etc. and meagre sum is being paid to him. Impugned orders may accordingly be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case and petitioner may be granted consequential benefits. 5. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 3 to 5 very fairly submits that the disciplinary authority after going through each and every aspects of the matter and appreciating the fact that the petitioner has been charged with dereliction of duty and loss to the establishment and, therefore, as a Range Forest Officer, it can comfortably be said that it was unexpected rather unbecoming of a Forest Officer who has not performed his duties in right manner and unable to save exchequer of the Corporation. It has further been alleged that petitioner failed to prevent theft and, therefore, rightly the order of punishment has been issued. Learned counsel very fairly submits that since petitioner was entitled for copy of the enquiry report along with the copy of the second show-cause notice, it would be better if the matter is remitted back to the respondents to reconsider the same and start a afresh from the stage of serving of enquiry report and, thereafter, giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass reasoned order in accordance with law. Having heard rival submission of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that impugned orders are not tenable and fit to be quashed. Without adhering to the cardinal principles of natural 6. RC 4 justice, the impugned order has been passed. It was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to serve enquiry report along with the second show cause notice before inflicting any major punishment. In absence of the
Decision
same, the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and is fit to be quashed and set aside. Since petitioner is aggrieved by non-service of the enquiry report and the second show-cause notice, the matter is fit to be remitted back to the respondent authorities to start the same from the stage of service of enquiry report after fulfilling requirements. 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned orders issued vide office order no. 77, dated 21.08.2017 (Annexures-16); modified order of punishment bearing office order no. 83, dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure-17); and office order no. 22, dated 30.05.2020 (Annexure-19) are hereby quashed and set aside. Since matter has been remitted back, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to take all his defence in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to start the proceeding in accordance with law from the stage of service of enquiry report, second show-cause, giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, fulfilling requirements and following the principles of natural justice and pass reasoned order in accordance with law, preferably within a period of eight weeks. It goes without saying that if order is passed in favour of the petitioner, the consequential benefits will follow. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC