Dr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Department
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No.4931 of 2018 ------- Dr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Department (Animal Husbandry) Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Abhinav Kumar, A.C. to G.A.I ------- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 08/02.02.2024 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary for the period extending between 28.03.1998 to 12.02.1999 has been rejected. 3.
Decision
Fact of the case as disclosed in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Regional Poultry Officer, Hotwar, Ranchi, in the year 1981. In the year 1996, several F.I.Rs were lodged in the matter of Fodder Scam. The matter continued and in relation to these cases, the petitioner was dismissed from services without serving any show cause notice upon him. Challenging this, the petitioner moved before the Patna High Court; whereby the order of dismissal was set aside and the petitioner was directed to give his joining before the competent authority. Thereafter the petitioner complying with the order of the court submitted his joining on 27.02.1998 before the competent authority, and his joining was appropriately accepted. Subsequently, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order contained in memo no. 44, dated 12th Feb.1999, in contemplation of departmental proceeding, with a direction to give his reporting in the 2 office of Director, Animal Husbandry and Research Institute and pursuant thereto; the petitioner reported before the headquarter on 26.04.1999. 4. The case of the petitioner is that when the respondents did nothing for payment of salary for the period extending between 28.03.1998 to 12.2.1999; in order to redress his grievance the petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.S. No. 5122/2009; wherein this Court has held that there was no valid reason for which, the arrears of salary of the petitioner for the period between 28.03.1998 to 12.02.1999 should be stopped in any manner and the matter was remanded to the respondent authorities. In compliance of the directions passed by this Court the respondent authorities have passed the impugned order dated 13.8.2018 wherein they have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the fact that he has been convicted by the special CBI court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent authorities cannot be permitted to deprive the petitioner from his legitimate dues pending in the nature of arrears of salary for the period between 28.03.1998 to 12.02.1999, following when the petitioner had been illegally dismissed from service which was set aside vide order dated 27.2.1998 passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 735/1998, and he was directed to rejoin, and in pursuance there to the petitioner had given joining on 28.03.1998; but in spite of this, salary for the aforesaid period has not been released which is highly arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that the respondent authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner in correct perspective, inasmuch as, the impugned order passed on 13.08.2018 has rejected the claim of the petitioner without providing any reason, though it is being admitted in the impugned order itself that the petitioner 3 had given his joining on 28.03.1998, therefore in view of this fact there remains no plausible reason not to pay the petitioner any salary for the period extending between 28.03.1998 to 12.02.1999, as because it is only due to the latches on the part of the respondent authorities and for the fault on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Learned counsel further submits that action of the respondent authority in passing the impugned order dated 13.08.2018 and non-payment of the arrears of salary, despite of the clear decision of this Court in W.P.S. No. 5122/2009, vide order dated 14.02.2018, is in stark contrast to the judgment of the Hon’ble Court, and further this has been done without specifying any reason, therefore the decision of non-payment is nothing but a case of non- application of mind and therefore the impugned order dated 13.08.2018 requires to be quashed and arrears of salary to be paid forthwith. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner previously filed W.P. (S) No. 5122/2009 seeking salary arrears from 18/03/1988 to 12/02/1999, before this High Court. Subsequently, the department issued memo no. 963 dated 13.08.2018, denying arrears for 28.03.1998 to 12.02.1999, complying with the High Court’s order. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was suspended vide order memo no. 140 Ni. Sha. dated 08-02-1996 for financial misconduct and absenteeism. Further, the petitioner went missing and failed to assist in the police inquiry, hindering notice issuance and departmental proceedings. Consequently, he was dismissed by memo no. 231 Ni. Sha. dated 11.03.1996. He lastly submits that the Patna High Court quashed the petitioner’s dismissal order and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner. In compliance with the 4 order of the court, the petitioner had submitted his joining on 26-04-1999 in the fixed headquarter and thus this makes it clear that his claim, that he had joined his office on 28-03-1998 is completely false and arbitrary. He further submits that the petitioner contested his suspension in W.P.(S). No. 2337/2003, which was dismissed by this High Court on 02-09-2003. LPA No. 672/2003 was also dismissed on 09-03-2004. Departmental proceedings ensued for financial irregularities against the petitioner and he was convicted by the Trial Court in case no. RC 43(A)/96-pat reg & R.C. 50 (A)/ 96-pat reg; as such the impugned order dated 13.08.2018 wherein the claim of the petitioner is rejected suffers from no illegality. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the impugned order dated 13.08.2018 it appears that the dismissal order of the petitioner was set aside by order dated 27.02.1998 by the Patna High Court in the Writ Application filed by him in CWJC No.735/1998 and pursuant to that he was permitted to join and then, the petitioner gave his joining on 28.03.1998. This fact is admitted in the para-4 of the impugned order; hence the contention of the Respondents in the counter affidavit that in compliance with the order of the Patna High Court, the petitioner had submitted his joining on 26-04-1999 in the fixed headquarter, is misplaced. Though the joining of the petitioner was accepted but he was put under suspension vide order dated 24.02.1999 in contemplation of departmental proceeding with a direction to give his report in the Office of Director, Animal Husbandry and Research Institute and pursuance of the same the petitioner reported before the Headquarter on 26.04.1999. 7. At the cost of repetition, it is evident from para-4 of the impugned order dated 09.08.2018 that though the 5 petitioner gave his joining on 28.03.1998 and was suspended on 12.02.1999 and thereafter the petitioner reported before the Headquarter on 26.04.1999 as per the suspension order. However, in the impugned order no reasons have been assigned as to why the petitioner will not get full salary from the date of his joining on 28.03.1998 till date of suspension. As aforesaid, the Impugned order though accepted that pursuant to the order passed by the Patna High Court in the case of this petitioner he did join on 28.03.1998 and thereafter pursuant to the order under Memo No.144 dated 12.02.1999 he was suspended. Thus, nowhere in the impugned order it has been contended that the petitioner would not be entitled for full salary form the date of joining till the date of suspension. 8. Though, a counter affidavit has been filed and learned counsel for the respondent relying upon the counter affidavit only submits that the departmental proceeding was initiated for financial irregularities; as such the impugned order dated 13.08.2018 wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected does not suffer from any illegality. This contention of the respondent is not acceptable by this Court because it is an admitted fact that after quashing of the dismissal order by the Patna High Court vide order dated 27.02.1998; the petitioner did join the Office of the respondent on 28.03.1998 and again he was suspended on 12.02.1999. Having regards to the aforesaid discussions, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for full salary from the date of joining i.e. 28.03.1998 till the date of suspension i.e. 12.02.1999. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.08.2018 passed by Respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. It goes without saying that the concerned respondent shall pay to the petitioner admissible arrear salary for the period from 28.03.1998 till the date of 6 suspension i.e. 12.02.1999 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. Fahim/- (Deepak Roshan, J.)