SHAMBU SARAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2004 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary Land Reform Department, Government of Jharkhand by which the punishment of stoppage of three increments and penalty of censure with a direction to be reflected in his ACR has been passed against the petitioner.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said punishment order has been imposed without issuance of any second show cause notice or without showing reasons for differing with the enquiry report, when enquiry officer has completely exonerated the petitioner from charges alleged against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment order is wholly vitiated in law and in teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar and Ors., 1993 4 SCC 727 and reiterated further in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra, 1998 7 SCC 84. Learned counsel for the petitioner, further, submits that the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again been followed in the case of Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman & MD. ITI Ltd. and Anr., 2006 9 SCC 440.

(3.) The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that while he was posted as Circle Inspector, Garhwa in the year 2002, on the basis of the complaint by one Shanti Devi of Village-Uchari, P.S. Garhwa, a departmental proceedings were initiated against him vide order no. 5458 dated 10.12.2002 and he was placed under suspension. The petitioner was served charge sheet vide Memo No. 353 dated 28.08.2003 (Annexure-1) alleging that the said lady complained against the petitioner that he demanded illegal gratification for Mutation of land purchased by her and certain other charges. The petitioner, thereafter, filed his reply denying the charges. The enquiry officer, thereafter, submitted enquiry report with clear finding that no charges were found to be proved against the petitioner. It is further submitted that in respect of plot no. 26 Khata No. 55, a Public Land Encroachment Case No. 08 of 2001-02 was initiated by the Circle Officer directing the said lady complainant to remove the encroachment from the Gair Mazarua Malik land and thereafter, action was taken for removal of the encroachment when she failed to remove the same. It is further submitted that the enquiry officer found that the petitioner had already been relieved from the charges on 13.02.2002 and transferred to Palamau while the Mutation application was rejected on 14.06.2002 and, therefore, no charges were proved against him. It is the case of the petitioner that no second show cause was issued to the petitioner thereafter by the disciplinary authority, i.e. the respondent no. 2, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary Land Reform Department Government of jharkhand and straightway, the impugned order dated 01.03.2004 has been passed vide Annexure-5 imposing the aforesaid punishment of stoppage of three increments and penalty of censure with a direction to be reflected in his ACR. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, assailed the impugned order that the impugned order has been passed wholly in violation of the principle of natural justice without following the mandate of law as required under the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and also in the teeth of the judgments referred hereinabove.