- (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of punishment contained in Memo No. 164 dated 21.2.2012 (Annexure-12) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela ­ Kharsawan, whereby the petitioner's one increment with cumulative effect has been withheld with denial of pay during suspension period. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 3.5.2012 (Annexure-14) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, whereby the petitioner's appeal has been rejected.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, a charge sheet was served on her containing three articles of charges. The petitioner, thereafter, requested the concerned authority to supply the papers on the basis of which the charges were framed, but the papers were not supplied saying that the same were not available. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted her written explanation categorically denying all the charges. The petitioner was put under suspension by Memo No. 419 dated 23.6.2011. Subsequently, her suspension was revoked by Memo No. 921 dated 12.12.2011. An enquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charges. The Enquiry Officer without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, concluded the enquiry and submitted a colourable enquiry report on 4.2.2012. On the basis thereof, the disciplinary authority awarded punishment to the petitioner withholding one increment with cumulative effect and holding her not entitled for anything, during the period of suspension, except the subsistence allowance paid to her. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred departmental appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, but the appellate authority summarily rejected the petitioner's appeal. The grievance of the petitioner is that the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty and the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment on the said sketchy enquiry report, without application of his mind, though there was no material or evidence on record for substantiating the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the said order in the departmental appeal on several grounds, but the appellate authority also without considering those grounds and the facts and materials on record, summarily rejected the petitioner's appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are wholly arbitrary and illegal, as the same are not based on any discussion of facts, materials and evidence on record. Though the petitioner had categorically denied all the charges with the supporting documents, her explanation and the documents have not been considered and discussed either in the order of the disciplinary authority or in the order of the appellate authority. Both the impugned orders are, thus, perverse and unsustainable.;