D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly against the order, passed by Respondent No. 2, who is Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, whereby, for the misconducts committed by the Petitioner, after holding necessary inquiry and after following necessary procedure, two increments have been stopped and except subsistence allowance, during the period of suspension, other allowances was ordered not to be paid to the Petitioner vide order dated 21st July, 2010, which is at Annexure7 to the memo of the present petition.
(2.) HAVING heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present Petitioner was working as Jansevak with the Respondents. Certain misconducts were committed by the Petitioner and therefore, show cause notice was given, which was replied by the Petitioner. Thereafter, inquiry officer was also appointed, who conducted inquiry and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, a detailed inquiry report was given dated 5th July, 2010, which is at Annexure6 to the memo of the present petition. Looking to this inquiry report, it appears that on several occasions several misconducts have been committed by the Petitioner like absenteeism and not attending the important meetings like NREGA, Labour Day Meeting etc. and the Respondents have to suffer because of the absenteeism of the Petitioner, who is Jansevak. It further appears from the inquiry report that there is No. procedural defect in holding inquiry, opportunity of being heard was given to the Petitioner and show cause was also given to the Petitioner. Thus, there is No. defect in holding the inquiry.
(3.) NOW , question remains is of quantum of punishment. Looking to the nature of misconducts and looking to the quantum of punishment, it cannot be said that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate on the contrary, a very lenient view has been taken by the Respondents i.e. stoppage of two increments and not to pay other allowances except subsistence allowance, during the period of suspension. The order of punishment dated 21st July, 2010 is at Annexure7 to the memo of the present petition, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti. Thus, the order of punishment is absolutely in consonance with the misconducts committed by the present Petitioner and therefore, the order of punishment, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, which is at Annexure7, needs No. interference.;