- (1.) THE petitioner had initially prayed for quashing the second show cause notice dated 12.07.2011 served on her in a departmental proceeding and enquiry report dated 5.7.2011. During pendency of the writ petition, the departmental enquiry was concluded holding the petitioner guilty and awarding punishment of dismissal by Memo No. 2752 dated 15.9.2011. The petitioner has challenged the said order by amending the writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner at the relevant time was holding the post of Block Supply Officer, Kanke Block, Ranchi. A complaint was filed against her before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, by one Krishna Kumar Prasad, said to be a ration shop holder. It was alleged that the petitioner was demanding Rs.30,000/ - as illegal gratification in the form of commission per bag of the ration articles and per drum of kerosene oil. On the said allegation, a trap team was organized. The petitioner's house was raided and valuable articles and currency notes were recovered and seized in presence of two independent witnesses -Shri Deo Krishna Prasad and Bablu. On the basis of a written report, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 41/2010 was registered on 27.09.2010 under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act besides others. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to jail custody on 29.09.2010. The respondents also initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner by serving memorandum of charges by Memo No. 65101 dated 11.12.2010. The petitioner filed written reply dated 24.06.2011 to the charge -sheet through her counsel, denying all the charges. The petitioner later on challenged the said departmental proceeding in W.P.S. No. 15 of 2011. However, the proceeding was not stayed and the order was not interfered with. In the meanwhile, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The enquiry further proceeded. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report dated 5.7.2011 finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner thereafter filed another writ petition being W.P.S. No. 3467 of 2011 seeking a direction on the respondents to supply the relevant document for filing the reply. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to supply the passbook. The petitioner thereafter filed the instant writ petition challenging the second show - cause notice for proposed major punishment as well as the enquiry report. During pendency of the writ petition, the order of punishment was passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Food, Supply & Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent no. 2) dismissing the petitioner from service. The said order was communicated by Memo No. 2752 dated 15.09.2011. The petitioner brought the said order on record by amendment of the writ petition and prayed for quashing of the same. The order of dismissal has been said to be vitiated on account of total non -application of mind, arbitrariness and non - observance of the principle of natural justice. The order is not supported by any legal material or evidence. It is mere paraphrasing of the allegation made in the criminal case. The petitioner had denied all the charges in his reply. No evidence was adduced to substantiate the charges. But the petitioner has been held guilty of all the charges.
(3.) MR . A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that when the charges were specifically denied by the petitioner, the same were required to be proved by cogent evidence. But no evidence was brought on record in support of the charges. The departmental enquiry proceeded and concluded in a casual manner, violating the rule of natural justice. There is no legal basis for finding and holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The order of punishment cannot be passed on mere allegation unless the allegation/charges are established by cogent evidence and material on record. Learned counsel emphatically submitted that not a single witness has been examined neither any document has been brought on record by way of evidence. The findings are only based on the basis of the report filed by the Vigilance by casually referring the same, without examining the allegation maker and without giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross -examine such person and test his veracity. The petitioner had no opportunity to know as to what material/ evidence were used against her. The entire process is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.;