- (1.) This interlocutory application has been filed seeking amendment in the writ petition challenging the appellate order dated 21.02.2013. Since the appellate order dated 21.02.2013 has been passed during the pendency, of the writ petition, I find sufficient ground to permit the petitioner to amend, the writ petition challenging the appellate order dated 21.02.2013. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 9009 of 2013 is allowed. W.P.(S) No. 1224 of 2013 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The brief facts of the case are that, a Charge-Memo dated 15.02.2010 was served upon the petitioner. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted for the allegation levelled in the Charge-Memo dated 15.02.2010. An enquiry report was submitted on 08.11.2011 in which both the charges framed against the petitioner have been found not proved however, the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, inflicted penalty of forfeiture of one annual increment which would be equivalent to two black marks. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by order dated 21.02.2013.
(2.) The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Rule 824(e) the punishment of forfeiture of one annual increment itself has been made equivalent to major punishment and since a regular departmental enquiry was conducted into the matter, the disciplinary authority without issuing any second show-cause notice could not have passed the punishment order dated 02.08.2012.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that in terms of the provision under Rule 828(c) of the Jharkhand Police Manual, in cases in which a penalty of forfeiture of annual increment is decided to be inflicted on a delinquent employee, there is no necessity of conducting regular departmental enquiry. He further submits that a perusal of enquiry report would indicate that the enquiry officer has indicated lack of supervision by the petitioner in the concerned police station and therefore, the disciplinary authority passed the penalty order taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case.;