Shiv Shankar Rajak, aged about 59 years, S/o Shidheshwar Rajak, R/o Maharj Ki Deudi v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 6180 of 2019 Shiv Shankar Rajak, aged about 59 years, S/o Shidheshwar Rajak, R/o Maharj Ki Deudi, P.O. – Patna City, P.S. – Khajakala, District – Patna, Bihar, at present Range Forest Offier, Sesai Range, Chaibasa Division World Food program Division, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa, District – West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Ranchi, at Van Bhawan, Doranda P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Ranchi, at Van Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Conservator of Forest, Dumka Circle, Dumka, at Sanjucut Ban Bhawan Khutaband, Dumka, P.O. & P.S.- Dumka, District – Dumka, Jharkhand. 5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Sahebganj, P.O. … Respondents …
Legal Reasoning
& P.S.- Sahebganj, Jharkhand. --- CORAM :HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK --- : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents 07/16th October 2024 1. Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents for quashing the order of punishment dated 15.03.2013 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Dumka Circle, Dumka by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment in a most arbitrary manner as well as for quashing the Memo No. 1234 dated 29.06.2016 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 3 has rejected the Service Appeal filed by the petitioner. Further the petitioner prays for a direction upon respondent no. 2 to dispose of the petitioner’s service appeal dated 06.08.2016. 2. Petitioner was posted as forester at Sahebganj under Social Forestry Division, Sahebganj and had done plantation job in Sarsha and Paharpur range with full satisfaction of higher authority. However, during the service tenure, the conservator of the Forest, Dumka Circle, Dumka had initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner with charges of work being incomplete and misuse of 1 government money and failure of plantation, disobeying the order of higher officers. The charge-sheet in regard to the initiation of departmental enquiry was not served to the petitioner and thus caused prejudice to the petitioner. Thereafter, though the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from charges but without differing with the same and without assigning any cogent reason and without issuance of second show cause notice, the petition has been inflicted punishment vide order dated 15.03.2013. 3. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same stand rejected by the Appellate Authority without giving any appreciation to the points alleged by the petitioner thereafter the petitioner has filed service appeal on 06.08.2016 which is still pending. Petitioner has also filed a representation stating therein that maximum period for taking decision in the appeal is six months but in his case, the same has been kept pending for more than six years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has already retied on 31.12.2021 and, as such, employer – employee relationship has ceased. Further assailing the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority learned counsel submits that without assigning any cogent reason or issuance of second show cause notice, the petitioner has been slapped with order of punishment though the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner from charges levelled against him. Learned counsel further submits that even the Appellate Authority has not considered any contention raised by the petitioner in appeal and the order of punishment has been upheld mechanically without application of mind. Learned counsel further places heavy reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Punjab National Bank & Others Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra reported in 1998 (7) SCC 84 which is quoted herein below:- 17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case [AIR 1963 SC 1612 : (1964) 2 SCR 1 : (1963) 1 LLJ 295] quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid 2 passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority. for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents justifying the impugned orders submits that the charges against the petitioner were very clear in nature and, as such, if the petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Office that does not give him any right for exoneration as Disciplinary Authority has differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well. It is further submitted that a decision has already been taken vide order dated 26.10.2018 on the service appeal preferred by the petitioner and as such, allegation of the petitioner that same is kept pending for six years is baseless and false. There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Competent Authorities as the same has been passed as per the procedure prescribed by the relevant rules and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 6. After hearing the Learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. There is no quarrel to the fact that Disciplinary Authority has ample power to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but given procedures has to be followed which has not been done in the instant case. 3 7. The Respondent-Authorities though have differed with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer but have not bothered to issue second show cause notice and without assigning any cogent reason for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, order of punishment has been passed which is nonest in the eyes of law. It was incumbent upon the Respondent-Disciplinary Authority to assign any cogent reasons for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Office. 8. Further from perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the same are cryptic, capricious and non-speaking which are fit to be quashed and set aside and even the Appellate Authority without application of mind has upheld the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 9. In this backdrop of the fact, this Court usually directs the authorities to initiate fresh departmental proceeding, but faced with the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present matter could not be remitted back to the authority to proceed in accordance with law, as the petitioner has already retired on 31.12.2021 and now the relationship of employee and employer has already ceased. 10. As a squitter to the aforesaid rules and guidelines and judicial pronouncement, the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 15.03.2013 as well as Appellate order dated 29.06.2016, are hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner is entitled for
Decision
all consequential benefits. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Aditi (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 4