The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 381 of 2021 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department (Animal Husbandry), Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 3. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi Versus ... Appellants Sri Ram Gupta … Respondents ---
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellants For the Respondent Order No. 16 : Mr. Sharad Kaushal, AC to AAG-III : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate --- Dated 12th February, 2024 This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6021 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment passed against the writ petitioner dated 20.12.2016 has been quashed with a further direction that the writ petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits.
Decision
The writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Touring Veterinary Officer and during his service period pursuant to the notification dated 22.06.1989, he was transferred from the post of Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Tandwa, Hazaribag to Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Pirtand, Giridih. The writ petitioner was relieved on 01.11.1988, but when he had gone to his transferred place to give his joining, he found that some other person was already working at which a temporary arrangement was made on account of the direction given by the Regional Director. The writ petitioner thereafter worked from 14.10.1988 to 18.07.1989, after which the writ petitioner was again transferred to the said block where he joined on 07.11.1988. In the year 2015, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner and a memo of charge was served upon the petitioner in Prapatra ‘K’ in which it was stated that the writ petitioner, the Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Tandwa, Hazaribag was transferred to the post of Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Pirtand, Giridih by Transfer Notification dated 22.06.1988 issued under the signature of Director, Animal Husbandry, 2. Bihar, Patna. In compliance of the transfer order, the writ petitioner got relieved from the post of Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Tandwa, Hazaribag on 01.11.1988 and gave his joining on the post of Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Pirtand on 07.11.1988. During this time since the earlier Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Pirtand, Giridih was continuing on the post of Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Pirtand and was not transferred to any other place, the writ petitioner’s transferred place of posting was already occupied and hence the writ petitioner could not be given the posting of the charge for the transferred place as Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Pirtand. The writ petitioner was granted the posting of Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Pirtand on 18.07.1989. However, for the period between 14.10.1988 to 18.07.1989 the payment was made by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Hazaribag on the basis of non-gazetted bills (Pay Scale). Since the petitioner had been a Class-II Officer, payment could not have been released and received on the basis of pay slip and not in the account, it was observed that for the above mentioned period, the payments have been made to the writ petitioner irregularly. Being served with the said charge, the writ petitioner had duly replied to the same, but since the reply was found to be unsatisfactory an enquiry was conducted wherein the enquiry officer had come to a conclusion that the Regional Director is the authority responsible for payment of salary to the writ petitioner and therefore he had found the charges partially proved. Subsequent thereto the punishment order was passed on 20.12.2016 wherein the period between 14.10.1988 to 18.07.1989 was treated as a break in service and the salary earned by the writ petitioner during the said period was to be recovered from the writ petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/ State of Jharkhand to the effect that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that enquiry officer had found the charges levelled against the writ petitioner partially proved. It has further been submitted that merely on account of some observation made by the enquiry officer with respect to the Regional Director being involved in payment of salary to the writ petitioner, the could not have formed the basis for the learned Single Judge 3. to quash the order of punishment. It has further been submitted that an opinion was taken from the Finance Department as well and consequent to the directives of the Finance Department, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner and which resulted in an order of punishment passed against the writ petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ writ petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the writ petitioner having been transferred to Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Pirtand, Giridih, his joining though was accepted to the said post, but posting was not given since the earlier Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Pirtand was not relieved and was already working there. A temporary arrangement was made pursuant to which the writ petitioner continued to render his services and he received his salary through pay slip on the direction of the Regional Director. It has thus been submitted that there was no occasion on the part of the concerned State authorities to have initiated a departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner as apparently there was no fault on the part of the writ petitioner and he had rendered his services on the basis of the direction of his superior officer. The departmental proceeding was initiated in the year 2015 with respect to the work of the writ petitioner which was rendered from 14.10.1988 to 18.07.1989. The factual aspects of the case clearly reveal that in fact there was no fault on the part of the writ petitioner, rather his joining was accepted but on account of the earlier Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Pirtand, Giridih having not been transferred and was continuing to work in the post, an arrangement was made pursuant to the direction of the superior authority consequent to which the writ petitioner continued to render his services. The writ petitioner was also paid salary through pay slip though it is the case of the State authorities that he being a Class-II officer, his salary should have been transferred in his account instead of issuing any pay slip. It is not in doubt that the pay slip which was issued to the writ petitioner was consequent to the direction of the Regional Director. The writ petitioner was also not the Drawing & Disbursing Officer. In fact the entire scenario of the case reveals that there was no occasion for the State authorities to have initiated a departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner 4. for non-existent charges as would be evident from the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was therefore correct in quashing the order of punishment passed against the writ petitioner dated 20.12.2016 and giving a direction to the respondent State authorities to release the consequential benefits to the writ petitioners. We on the basis of the findings recorded above do not find any reason to interfere in order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6021 of 2019 and consequently this appeal stands dismissed with a direction to the State authorities to recalculate the pension and extend all the consequential benefits, the writ petitioner is entitled to expeditiously and not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A. stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK