AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 03.09.2009 issued by respondent no.3 (Annexure -4) imposing the punishment of censure for the year 2006 -07, withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and depriving from salary for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed, in the writ application is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in Water Resources Department in the year 1987. In course of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2002 and after re -organisation of the States, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the present State of Bihar. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer in Madhepur (Jhanjharpur) in the district of Madhubani. Vide order dated 17.03.2007, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding by the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. On similar set of allegations, other executive engineer, junior engineer (vigilance) and another junior engineer were also placed under suspension. On 18.06.2007, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet and the petitioner submitted his show cause. The departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and other three engineers thereafter, by virtue of revision in the cadre division, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Jharkhand and accordingly, on 01.07.2008 the petitioner joined on the post of Assistant Engineer in the office of Chief Engineer, Design, Master Planning & Hydrology, WRD, Ranchi. After allocation of the State of Jharkhand by resolution dated 20.10.2008, the petitioner was served with a fresh charge sheet containing four different charges and the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation in addition to the explanation submitted by him in response to earlier charge sheet. Superintending Engineeer was appointed as enquiry officer to the charges levelled against the petitioner who submitted the inquiry report on 23.12.2008 and the same was forwarded to the respondent no.3 vide letter dated 23.12.2008 vide Annexure -3 to the writ application. The enquiry officer in its report mentions that none of the charges could be proved against the petitioner. Ultimately by impugned order dated 03.09.2009 issued under the signature of the respondent no.3 has been awarded with the following punishments: -

(3.) Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges by the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority has not given the reason for disagreement with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and the petitioner ought to have been given opportunity for the reply to the reasons for disagreement but without giving any cogent reasons for disagreement the impugned order has been passed which is unlawful, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision reported in 2006 (9) SCC 440. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits similarly situated persons have been exonerated from the charges and the petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment. Since proceeding initiated against the executive engineer and one junior engineer by the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar have been dropped vide notification dated 07.10.2009 and 08.10.2009 Annexure -6 and 6/1 to the writ application. In this respect, the petitioner has referred to a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others as reported in 2013 (2) JBCJ 238 SC.