Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner retired from the post of Additional Collector on 31.10.2008 and thereafter the impugned order of punishment has been passed on 07.11.2008, Annexure -4 wherein he has been imposed with a punishment that he would not be entitled to any promotion. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition by the petitioner inter alia on a number of grounds/which are as follows: - - (i) the departmental proceeding initiated vide resolution dated 13.09.1996, remained unconcluded on the date of his retirement i.e. on 31.10.2008, therefore it lapsed. (ii) in the said departmental proceeding itself, the enquiry officer exonerated him from the charges vide a report submitted oft 25.05.1997, Annexure -1. (iii) the disciplinary authority did not issue any second show cause notice giving reasons for differing with the opinion of the enquiry officer exonerating the petitioner before the order of punishment was passed. (iv) the order of punishment that no promotion can be granted to him, cannot be passed after his retirement purportedly under Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1930 and Rule 49 thereof. (v) after the retirement of the petitioner, no fresh departmental proceeding as conceived under the Jharkhand Pension Rules can be initiated under Rule 43(b). (vi) In any case, even condition for initiation of such proceeding under Rule 43(b) ought to be satisfied.
(2.) IT is submitted that the impugned order straightway imposed the punishment without any reasons as such. The charge against the petitioner in the said departmental proceeding was that he had signed illegal award No. 478 and 479 to the tune of Rs. 17,64,047.18/ - under which payments were made to two individuals causing huge loss to the Government in spite of the fact that the tank for which the award was given was located in a plot, which was recorded as garmazarua sarvasadharan. The petitioner incidentally was placed under suspension in contemplation of the aforesaid departmental proceeding. Enquiry officer, namely Commissioner of South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, however, in his enquiry report dated 27.05.1997 opined that when the petitioner had joined as Special Land Acquisition Officer, the proposal for the award was already submitted to the Government and he did not have any opportunity to tamper or make any change in the proposal submitted to the Government at that time. Secondly when the award was sanctioned by the Government and returned to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for declaring the award, there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner, since the Government had already sanctioned the award and it was a formality to declare it and publish it. Therefore, the petitioner was held not guilty for a misconduct which was committed before his tenure. The enquiry officer recommended that the charges against the petitioner be dropped. It is clear that the respondents did not conclude the enquiry proceeding all along till the date of his retirement. The petitioner had to approach this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5638 of 2007 with a grievance that his promotion was withheld allegedly on the ground of pendency of the departmental proceeding. The said writ petition was disposed of by giving direction upon the concerned authority to consider his representation and take steps for obtaining file from the DOPT, Government of Bihar and thereafter, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law vide judgment dated 25.06.2008.
(3.) PERUSAL of the impugned order shows that steps were taken to obtain the record from the State of Bihar and thereafter, information was sought from the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, which was furnished on 14.08.2008. The disciplinary authority has, however, passed the aforesaid order of punishment after coming to a conclusion that the petitioner, who was the Land Acquisition Officer, had violated the Government Circulars and Rules while issuing the award of a land recorded as garmazarua sarvasadharan. Apparently during the pendency of the proceeding till his retirement, the disciplinary authority never issued any second show cause notice giving reasons for differing with the said report.;