Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order as contained in Memo No. 6013 (S) dated 11.10.2010 issued by the respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of: (i) Stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, (ii) Non -payment of any other amount except subsistence allowance during the suspension period, and (iii) Posting of the petitioner for next three years on the post of non -work post (as contained in Annexure -11 to this writ application). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing letter No. 4682(S) dated 02.08.2011 issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner had been rejected. Challenge has also been made to Memo No. 938 dated 20 -8 -2011 issued by me respondent No. 5 wherein it has been stated that pay increment to the petitioner will be made available from 01.07.2009, 01.07.2010, 01.07.2011 and 01.07.2012 and the office order No. 52 as contained in Memo No. 793 dated 20.07.2011 granting increment in pay with effect from 01.07.2011 had been withdrawn. The petitioner while posted as a Junior Engineer at Bundu Block under the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand in the year 2008 was assigned the work of rural development at block level. An explanation was sought for from the petitioner and others vide letter No. 904 dated 07.05.2008 with respect to non -payment of wages in the construction of ponds at village Dumra Toli, Gitildih under NREGA Scheme. In the said letter certain irregularities with respect to non -maintenance of muster roll and in regard to implementation of the scheme was pointed out wherein the petitioner and others were asked to give an explanation. The explanation as sought for was submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide letter dated 10.12.2008 to the Commissioner, State Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (respondent No. 6) wherein it was also indicated that with respect to maintenance in muster roll and other irregularities there seems to be no fault on the part of the officers and employees concerned; and that the explanation so submitted can be accepted. However, the Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter No. 2255 dated 24.03.2009 addressed to the respondent No. 2 held the petitioner prima facie responsible for laches in supervision. Consequent thereto vide office order as contained in Memo No. 1778 (S) dated 04.04.2009 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, the petitioner was suspended for dereliction of duty. Charge in Format 'Ka' followed the order of suspension and in spite of explanation submitted by the petitioner, the departmental proceeding was initiated. The report of the Conducting Officer -cum -Additional Collector, Ranchi dated 26.03.2010 mentioned that charge Nos. 1 and 2 were not proved against the accused person, but opinion was given for sorting out various other problems including labour payment. The respondent No. 4, however, issued a second show -cause notice enclosing the inquiry report of the Conducting Officer holding him guilty for dereliction of duty. The petitioner on receipt of letter dated 16.08.2010 gave an explanation vide letter dated 28.08.2010 and thereafter by impugned order as contained in Memo No. 6013 (S) dated 11.10.2010 inflicting several punishments to the petitioner was passed by the respondent No. 4. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2, but however, the Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter No. 4682 (S) dated 02.08.2011 rejected the appeal and thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Md. Sohail Anwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned J.C. to A.G. Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though the charges against the petitioner has not been proved, but in spite of same, the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as contained in second show -cause notice dated 16.08.2010, although the disciplinary authority has not given any reasons as to what occasioned disagreement with the report of the inquiry officer. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was never given an opportunity to answer the views of the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer and in such circumstance it has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the Appellate Order which is scribed by the respondent No. 3 does not contain any reason to justify the dismissal of the appeal. The Appellate Order therefore being a non -speaking order also deserves to be set aside. Learned senior counsel with respect to the office order as issued by the respondent No. 5 as contained in Memo No. 938 dated 20.08.2011 has submitted that the earlier order granting increment in salary has also been withdrawn without giving any notice to the petitioner.
(3.) MR . Prabhat Singh, learned J.C. to A.G. on the other hand, has submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not fully exonerate the petitioner from the charges leveled against him and sufficient reasons were read into the inquiry report by the disciplinary authority to issue a second show -cause notice for proposed punishment to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the Appellate Order issued by the respondent No. 3 discloses that the order of the disciplinary authority inflicting punishment upon the petitioner had been looked into and thereafter the appeal was dismissed. In such circumstances, it has been submitted by learned J.C. to A.G. that the rules of natural justice were never violated; and that the explanation/show -cause/appeal submitted by the petitioner in the various hierarchy of the authorities were duly taken note of and appropriate orders were passed which were in accordance with law.;