Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) The instant intra court appeal is against the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.1414 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority has been declined to be interfered with.
(2.) The brief facts of the case of the appellant/writ petitioner as per the pleading made in the instant appeal which is relevant for the purpose of appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge which is the subject matter of the present intra court appeal are as follows: The appellant/writ petitioner while working as peon in the Ranchi Judgeship posted in the office of the Munsif at Civil Court, Ranchi, was served with a charge as contained in Memo No.7169-72 dated 05.12.2007, alleging therein that on 30.11.2007 the appellant/writ petitioner was absent from duty after putting attendance in the attendance register and was taking duty through his son, Arun Rai, basis upon which departmental proceeding was initiated alleging gross negligence and dereliction from duty. Subsequent thereto, the additional copy of the additional charges as contained in Memo No.7208-11 dated 06.12.2007 had also been served levelling therein the following charges of misdeeds and misconduct: (i) Writ petitioner/appellant had not furnished correct income tax return (ii) Writ petitioner/appellant was working as land broker being a Government servant, purchased several piece of land in the name of his family without informing to the department (iii) Writ petitioner/appellant had made illegal construction in the Government quarters occupied by him, therefore, allotment was cancelled and he had to vacate the quarters (iv) Writ petitioner/appellant had not informed the department regarding several cases pending against him and (v) Writ petitioner/appellant had opened several Bank account without informing the department. The disciplinary authority after service of charges/additional charges appointed enquiry officer before whom the writ petitioner/appellant put his appearance and defended the charges, thereafter enquiry report was submitted on 15.03.2012 but none of the charges has been proved with the recommendation for his exoneration from the charges and the copy of the enquiry report has been sent to the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi for needful. The Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi being not satisfied with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, decided to conduct further enquiry, for which Sri Manoj Prasad, Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi was appointed as enquiry officer. The second enquiry officer submitted enquiry report on 29.09.2014, who had found some charges proved against the petitioner and in consequence thereof, the disciplinary authority vide order No.01 dated 08.01.2015 passed the order of dismissal from service against the delinquent. The writ petitioner/appellant challenged the order of his dismissal before the appellate forum but the appellate forum had dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the order of dismissal was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.1414 of 2018 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 18.07.2018 against which the present appeal has been preferred.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has agitated the ground of procedural lapses to the effect of appointment of second enquiry officer after charges having not been proved by the first enquiry officer, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner is not permissible. Altogether six charges have been levelled against the appellant/writ petitioner but only three charges have been proved and the charges are not so serious, warranting passing the order of dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits by referring to the second enquiry report, wherein the charges which have been found to be proved pertains to the absence of the appellant/writ petitioner, the charge pertaining to illegal construction in the Government quarters and the charge pertaining to pendency of the several criminal cases while the charges pertaining to non-furnishing of correct income tax return, the charge pertaining to working as land broker and the charge of having several Bank accounts have not been proved, therefore, in view of the nature of charges having not been proved by the enquiry officer, the order of dismissal cannot be commensurate with the gravity of charges. It has further been submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner is to superannuate on attending the normal age of superannuation sometime in the year 2030 and he has already put his service of about 23 years without any complaint and as such while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority ought to have taken into consideration these aspects of the matter. It has further been submitted that even accepting the charge of absence from duty for a period of one day, for which, the order of dismissal cannot be said to be commensurate. So far as other charges which have been proved, pertains to making illegal construction of house, submission has been made that when the allotment order has already been cancelled, the same cannot be inserted as a charge since the adverse action has already been taken by cancelling the order of allotment, further non-disclosure of several criminal cases which pertains to commission of offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the same has been compounded by making payment of the amount against the cheque issued by him and hence even accepting the charge found to be proved, the order of dismissal cannot be said to be proportionate to the charge committed.;