The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 4826 of 2018 ------ Ravi Shanker Prasad, aged about 67 years, son of late Bisheswar Prasad, Resident of Flat No. G D, Block, Ramdev Vihar Society, P.O. & P.S.-Argora Dist, Ranchi… … Petitioner -Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Joint Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Dy. Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 5. Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation through its Managing Director, Police Bhawan, Dhurwa P.O. and P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ... … Respondents ------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ------ For the Petitioner : M/s. Manoj Tandon, Krishna Murari, Advocate For the State For the Respondent No. 5:M/s. Indranil Bhaduri, Advocate : M/s. Divya, A.C. to S.C.-III ----- 13/14.10.2024 The petitioner Ravi Shanker Prasad has filed this Writ Petition for quashing of impugned order / inquiry report dated 06.06.2018 and second show-cause notice issued vide Letter No. 3703 dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure- 15 Series), issued under the signature of Respondent No. 4- the Deputy Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi by virtue of which, 25% of the pension of the petitioner was withheld after he was found guilty in the Departmental Proceeding for being negligent not to verify the Bank Guarantee No. 29/2012-13 dated 07.02.2013 worth Rs. 97,57,900/- which was produced by M/s Gautam Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd for entering into an agreement for construction of Police Quarters at Ranchi. 2. The petitioner at that time was working as the Executive Engineer in Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and he was duty- bound to get the Bank Guarantee verified before entering into an agreement. It is further case of the Respondent No. 4- the Deputy Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi that the bank guarantee 2. was found to be fake and fabricated. The petitioner retired on 31.05.2014. 3. Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him on 05.12.2016 when the memo of charge was handed over to him (Annexure-12). The Inquiry Officer produced the documents to prove that the petitioner was negligent enough not to verify the Bank Guarantee before entering into an agreement with M/s Gautam Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd for construction of Police quarters at Ranchi. However, no witness was produced by the Inquiry Officer during the Departmental Proceeding. The petitioner was found guilty and punishment was imposed upon him and 25% of his pension was withheld. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that it was sine qua non for the Inquiry Officer to produce witnesses to prove the contents of the documents in absence of which, the contents of the documents on which the respondents were relying upon, cannot be read in evidence against the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others reported in [(2009) 2 SCC 570], wherein it was held that in case of departmental proceeding where no witness was examined to prove the contents of the documents, the contents of the documents cannot be read in evidence against the Delinquent Officer. It was further submitted that before imposing punishment upon the petitioner, the respondents ought to have consulted Jharkhand Public Service Commission as is mandated by Rule 43 (c) of Jharkhand Pension Rules. On these two points, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order. 5. Miss. Divya, learned A.C. to S.C.-III has admitted that no witness was examined by the respondents during the Departmental Proceeding. She has also admitted that Jharkhand Public Service Commission was not consulted before final order was passed. However, she has submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority afresh in light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Rajit Singh reported in [((2022) 15 SCC 254], wherein it was held that when punishment is imposed upon the delinquent in the Departmental Proceeding, it cannot be quashed on the ground that there was laches in the Departmental Proceeding. The proper course of action will be 3. to remand the matter back for initiation of Departmental Proceeding from the stage when the laches have occurred. 6. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Punjab National Bank and others versus Kunj Behari Mishra reported in [(1998) 7 SCC 84], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
Decision
21. “Both the respondents superannuated on 31-12-1983. During the pendency of these appeals, Misra died on 6-1-1995 and his legal representatives were brought on records. More than 14 years have elapsed since the delinquent officers had superannuated. It will, therefore, not be in the interest of justice that at this stage the cases should be remanded to the disciplinary authority for the start of another innings. We, therefore, do not issue any such directions and while dismissing these appeals, we affirm the decisions of the High Court which had set aside the orders imposing penalty and had directed the appellants to release the retirement benefits to the respondents. There will, however, be no order as to costs.” 7. The petitioner has retired in the year 2014. Punishment was imposed upon him in 2020 after six years of his retirement and it will not be in the interest of justice to remand the matter back for reinitiation of Departmental Proceeding after ten years of his retirement. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and judicial pronouncements referred to herein above, the entire Departmental Proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the punishment order is quashed. 9. This Writ Petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Nandini/- Uploaded (Ambuj Nath, J.)