- (1.) 10 - 04.12.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner, a Member of the Jharkhand Administrative Service, has been proceeded against in a departmental proceeding vide Resolution No.3166 dated 13.06.2011 for certain charges in relation to his posting as Land Revenue Deputy Collector, Sadar, Chaibasa, Annexure 2 to the amended writ petition impugned herein. Chargesheet is enclosed to the counter affidavit of the respondents dated 6.1.2012. Allegation relates to misconduct of the petitioner in the matters of grant of sanction and approval on certain deputation of Revenue Karmchari and Amin in the execution of work relating to renewal of Khas Mahal without obtaining permission of the Deputy Commissioner and giving misleading reply on being asked.
(2.) The second charge relates to improper behaviour of the petitioner with the superior authority in relation to application for allotment of certain quarters i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa. The third charge alleges disobedience of direction on deputation for law and order duty issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa by the petitioner indulging in unwarranted correspondences amounting to indiscipline on the part of the petitioner. The next charge also alleges violation of Rules in the matter of renewal of Khas Mahal lease in the matter of sending recommendation by passing the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa directly to the Deputy Commissioner. Other three charges allege act of unauthorized occupation of quarters allotted to the observer in Local Urban Bodies Election; Procurement of advance as salary in his capacity as a Special Officer, Chaibasa from the Municipality and unparliamentary language used in the reply submitted to the Deputy Commissioner. Petitioner has also assailed a letter no. 156 dated 26th April, 2012 and letter no. 185 dated 14th May, 2012 issued by the Inquiry Officer whereunder he was asked to appear and submit his defence. Challenge to the initiation of the departmental proceeding is essentially on the ground that the respondent -Department have already taken a decision to impose a punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect as proposed by the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, but thereafter impugned proceeding for imposing a major penalty has been initiated, which is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. A decision was already taken to punish the petitioner by a minor punishment by the competent authority and they are debarred from reviewing their own decision thereafter which has led to initiation of the impugned proceeding.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the notings on the file enclosed show that on a wholly misconceived assumption the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is treated as a major punishment and the department has proceeded to initiate regular departmental proceeding for imposing major punishment upon the petitioner. Withholding of one increment with cumulative effect, is in the nature of minor punishment and the respondents authorities seem to have arrived at such finding on due deliberation on the charges levelled against the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa. Thereafter initiation of the impugned proceeding would lead to victimization of the petitioner in an arbitrary exercise of power. Learned senior counsel informs that on account of interim protection granted by this Court though the proceedings have continued but final decision has not been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondents authorities are likely to proceed in a biased manner against the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned proceeding is liable to be interfered.;