Surendra Kumar ……… v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 3333 of 2023 ---------- Surendra Kumar ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Matters, Ranchi. 2. Additional Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Matters, Ranchi. 3. Joint Agricultural Director-cum-Controller Weight and Measurement, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Matters, Ranchi. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ………. Respondents. ---------- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
08/ 18.06.2024 Heard the parties. ----------- : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate Mr. M.K. Roy, GA-I Mr. Chandan Tiwari, AC to GA-I ---------- 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 15.12.2017 (Annexure-4), whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of ‘Censure’ and ‘Stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect’. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 20.08.2018, issued by respondent No. 2 whereby the appeal preferred by the pettoiner has been dismissed. 3. Petitioner, who was working as Technical Assistant in the office of Assistant Agriculture Director-cum-Deputy Controller, Weight and measurement, Hazaribagh, was taken into custody in connection with Vigilance Case No. 15/2016, Hazaribagh on 20.10.2016 and consequent thereto, vide office order No. 23/ 16 dated 28.10.2016, he was put under suspension. Thereafter, petitioner was issued charge-sheet vide memo No. 621 dated 07.09.2017, seeking his reply to the same. In response to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 22.09.2017 denying the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, departmental proceeding was conducted in which petitioner was held guilty of the charges. Subsequently vide order 1 dated 15.12.2017, the respondent No. 3 issued order of punishment as aforesaid. The petitioner challenged the said order of punishment in Appeal and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.08.2018 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Throwing challenge to the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the departmental enquiry though petitioner was held guilty of the charges and finding was returned to that effect but without adducing any evidences or exhibiting the documents, the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges. Learned counsel further argues that neither the copy of enquiry report nor the 2nd show-cause notice was ever given to the petitioner and hence, he was prejudiced. On these scores itself the punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority should go. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and submits that in view of specific observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the punishment order is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State by opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner’s contention regarding non- supply of copy of enquiry report along with 2nd show-cause notice is totally falsified in view of specific averments made in paras- 18 to 20 of the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel submits that from perusal of Annexure-7, page 38 of the counter-affidavit it is crystal clear that petitioner was served with the copy of enquiry report along with 2nd show-cause notice. The stand of the petitioner that he did not receive the same is not accepted. It has been further argued that criminal case as well as departmental proceeding are two different things which cannot be clubbed together. The petitioner has been held guilty of the charges in the departmental proceeding, if he was 2 acquitted in the criminal case, he can very well make representation before the respondent-Authorities for considering the same. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has approached this Court almost 5 years after passing of the impugned order and as such, the writ petition is barred by law of limitation. 6. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons: I) II) Petitioner has been held guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer. The stand of the petitioner that he has not been served copy of the enquiry report is not accepted to this Court and the same is falsified by the statement made in paras-18 to 20 of the counter- affidavit supported by Annexure-J, page 38. III) From perusal of the documents of Annexure-J it appears that petitioner was served with the copy of enquiry report along with 2nd show-cause notice IV) To ascertain the fact as to whether petitioner was served the copy of enquiry report or not, the entire documents of departmental proceeding was asked to be presented before this Court. In compliance thereof, learned counsel for the respondents have produced the original records of the entire departmental proceeding before this Court. From perusal of the same, it appears that not only the petitioner but other persons have also been served with the copy of enquiry report along with 2nd show-cause notice and they have also received the same. However, petitioner refused to receive the same and hence, the respondents had sent the enquiry report along with 2nd show-cause notice at the address of petitioner by Post. 7. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner to paras-28 and 29 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) is also of no assistance to him 3 on the ground that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case. 8. In the departmental proceeding strict evidence like that of the criminal case is not considered and it is always preponderance of probabilities, whereas, in the criminal case different yardstick is adopted regarding strict evidence. 9. The petitioner has already superannuated and as such, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-supply of copy of the enquiry report, it would be apposite to mention here that merely because there is a right to receive the copy of enquiry report and if the same has not been supplied, the entire proceeding cannot be said to be vitiated 10. The similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ECIL V. B. Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under: "30. (v) The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the enquiry officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non- furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the to be considered on the 4 concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an `unnatural expansion of natural justice' which in itself is antithetical to justice". (emphasis supplied) 11. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, no interference is warranted in the instant writ application and the same is hereby dismissed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 5