- (1.) This writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by respondent no. 2 dated 24th March, 1999, whereby, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority has been slightly modified in the departmental appeal. Part of this order especially punishment nos. 2 and 3 are under challenge, which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the office of the respondents and he was transferred from Ranchi to Daltonganj on 6th February; 1995 and it is alleged against the petitioner that he had not accepted the transfer order and he had also taken away his service book. The allegations of civil as well as criminal were against the present petitioner. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case vide order dated 14th June, 1999, which is at Annexure-7 to the memo of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon the decisions, 1999 AIR(SC) 1416 as well as in and submitted that once there is acquittal from the criminal charges and if similar are the charges, the order of punishment could not have been passed by the respondents.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was transferred on 6th February,. 1995. and he, has refused to accept the transfer order and he being, the Senior Assistant, had gone on leave without any sanction from 6th February, 1995 and he had also taken away his service book. These are the charges against the present petitioner. Charge sheet was served upon the petitioner and inquiry was conducted and detailed inquiry report has been given and on the basis of the inquiry report, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the charges levelled against the present petitioner is proved, for which, disciplinary authority has passed an order dated 25th July, 1997 at Annexure-5 to the memo of the petition. The petitioner's absenteeism period was treated as leave without pay and three increments with future effect have been stopped. Against this punishment, departmental appeal was preferred before respondent no. 2 and by appellate order, the punishment is altered and absenteeism from 6th February, 1995 to 19th October, 1995 was treated as extra ordinary leave without pay and period of absenteeism was regularized. So far as stoppage of three increments with future effect is concerned, the same was kept as it is and he was given warning for his behaviour. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that much lenient view has been taken by the respondent authorities "and the petitioner, being a Senior Assistant, remained absent from February 1999 to October 1995 because he was transferred. This is an adamant behaviour on the part of the petitioner and he is not obeying the order passed by the respondents. Such type of behaviour cannot be tolerated in the Government service and, therefore, punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be leveled as shockingly disproportionate punishment and there is no legal infirmity in holding departmental inquiry and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition for the following facts and reasons: (i) The petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the office of the Forest Department of the State of Jharkhand at Ranchi (now capital of the State of Jharkhand). (ii) It appears that the petitioner was transferred on 6th February, 1995 and when the respondent authorities tried to serve the transfer order through one Sri Laxmi Prasad, the petitioner refused to accept the transfer order and he went on leave without any permission and without any sanction from 6th February, 1995 to 19'h October, 1995 i.e. for approximately more than eight months. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner was served a charge sheet for departmental inquiry, for which, adequate opportunity was given and ultimately Inquiry Officer has conducted the departmental inquiry and on the basis of the evidence on record, the charges leveled against the present petitioner are proved, as per the report given by the Inquiry Officer. There is no procedural lapse in holding the departmental inquiry. Witnesses were examined by holding departmental inquiry. Opportunity of hearing was also given to the petitioner. (iv) On the basis of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority has passed an order for imposing punishment vide order dated 25th July, 1997, which is at Annexure-5 to the memo of the petition. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is to the effect that for absenteeism period, no salary will be paid to the petitioner and for misconduct, three increments with future effect were stopped. (v) Against the order at Annexure-5 dated 25th July, 1997, the departmental appeal was preferred before respondent no. 2 i.e. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Ranchi, who passed an order dated 24th March, 1999, which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of the petition, whereby, period of long absenteeism for more than eight months is treated as extra ordinary leave without pay. So far as three increments is concerned, the punishment is kept as it is and the petitioner was given warning by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. (vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, that the petitioner is challenging only punishment nos. 2 and 3. as stated in Annexure-6. Second punishment is the stoppage of three increments with future effect and so far as third punishment is concerned, a warning is given to the petitioner that in future, he will not behave like this. This is not an additional punishment, at all This type of behaviour cannot be tolerated in the sender with the State Government and that too by an employee of the rank of the present petitioner, who is working as Senior Assistant, At a relevant time when the first punishment was slightly modified, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Ranchi, being the head of the Forest Department, has warned the present petitioner that he will behave properly; in future. This cannot be termed as shockingly disproportionate punishment, looking" to the nature of the misconduct. Moreover, stoppage of three increments with future effect is absolutely in consonance with the irresponsible behaviour and misconduct of the present petitioner. He remained absent from 6th February 1995 to 19th October, 1995 i.e. for approximately more than eight months period and that too without any permission or without any sanction of leave. Moreover, he had refused to accept the transfer order. Looking to the nature of the misconduct, it cannot be said that the punishment is grossly disproportionate nor it can be said or leveled as shockingly disproportionate. On the contrary, much lenient view has been taken by the respondent authorities. (vii) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the acquittal order in the criminal matter and aforesaid two decisions. Looking to Annexure-7, it appears that, in fact, the whole criminal case is based upon altogether another principle of the Indian Evidence Act i.e. the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. So far as departmental inquiry is concerned, the punishment can be awarded on preponderance of probability, keeping in mind the basic difference between these two proceedings and also keeping in mind the fact that there is also difference in nature of allegations as the criminal as well as civil cases are leveled against the petitioner. On civil side, there is allegation that he has not accepted the transfer order from one Sri Laxmi Prasad. If there is some difference in the charges and difference in examination of witnesses in departmental proceeding as well as in the criminal proceeding, not to accept the transfer order is also a misconduct in the departmental inquiry and, therefore, inquiry has been conducted on the basis of principle of preponderance of probability. Mr. A.K. Sinha has given evidence in the departmental inquiry. In this set of circumstances, both these proceedings are not super impossible. In this set of circumstances, it cannot be said that the charges leveled against the petitioner in departmental inquiry and in the criminal case are the same and, therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that once there is acquittal in criminal matter, the punishment ought not to have been imposed, this contention is not accepted by this Court. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. The order passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent no. 2) vide order dated 24th March, 1999 at Annexure-6 to the memo of the petition is absolutely true, correct, legal and in consonance with the facts of the case. There is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;