- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 11.4.2007 and the appellate order dated 3.11.2012. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed in the year, 1991 as Revenue Karamchari and while posted at Hussainabad Block, he was put under suspension w.e.f. 25th September, 2004. A Charge Memo dated 29th October, 2005 was served upon the petitioner in which five charges have been framed against the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted into the matter and the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order dated 11.4.2007, whereby the following punishments have been awarded to the petitioner:-- (i) Punishment of censure; (ii) Stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative effects; and (iii) No salary & allowances will be paid for the suspension period except subsistence allowances.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 2 & 4 stating as under-- 5. That it is submitted that the Writ Petitioner is a Revenue Karamchari posted at Hussainabad Anchal of Palamu District. He was put under suspension w.e.f. 25.9.2004 to 13.10.2005 by the Respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Palamu for the following allegations leveled against him: (i) Absent from Headquarter without prior permission/leave; (ii) Not performing his duty/responsibility properly; (iii) Demanding illegal gratification for mutation case; (iv) Not identifying family below poverty tine; (v) Not performing duty in connection with preparing voter list as evident from the memo of charge contained in memo No. 613 dated 21.10.2005. .... .... 9. That it is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu after through perusal of the enquiry report in detailed found that the following charges against the Petitioner found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer which were grave in nature and against the code of conduct of the Govt. Servant: (i) To remain absent from Headquarter without prior permission/leave to remain absent in weekly meeting and "Block day' (Prakhand Diwas) and for not submitting the point wise explanation; (ii) To disobey the order and delay in handing over the charges; (iii) For not identifying family below poverty line and not to obey the order to inquire the burnt houses of Village-Ghoghra for giving relief to the affected villagers; (iv) For not performing duty in connection with voter list under Brief Revision 2005. 10. That it is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu in the light of said enquiry report awarded the following punishment and communicated to the Petitioner vide memo No. 245 Estt. dated 11.4.2007: (i) Punishment of censure; (ii) Stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative effects; (iii) no salary & allowances will be paid for the suspension period except subsistence allowances. 11. That it is submitted that the Petitioner thereafter, preferred appeal against punishment awarded vide service appeal No. 1/2007 before the Commissioner, Palamu Division, Medininagar Respondent No. 3 who after hearing the Petitioner found no ground to interfere in the order dated 2.11.12 that while the learned lawyer of the Petitioner was making submissions, the Petitioner tried to disturb the proceedings of the Court of the Commissioner. His conduct also was found against code of conduct of the Government servant. The order passed by the Commissioner, Palamu Division, Respondent No. 3 was communicated to the Petitioner vide memo No. 41 dated 3.11.12. 12. That it is submitted that from the above it is apparent that all charges leveled against the petitioner except charge at Sl. 3 found proved and keeping in view the charge of grave nature, the D.C. Respondent No. 2 has rightly awarded the punishment and the Commissioner, Palamu Division Respondent No. 3 has rightly rejected the appeal of the Petitioner on 3.11.12.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.;