- (1.) Prayer in this application is for quashing the order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the respondent No. 5, whereby and whereunder a punishment of forfeiture of 6 months' increment amounting to one black mark was inflicted upon the petitioner. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 15.6.2011 passed by the respondent No. 4 being the appellate authority by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment has been dismissed as also the order dated 6.2.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the appeal memorial was also dismissed.
(2.) The petitioner was posted as an officer-in-charge, Nagar Untari, wherein the allegations had been levelled against the petitioner of irresponsible, immoral, indiscipline and irregular act leading to issuance of charge-sheet dated 14.6.2009. In the departmental proceeding the enquiry officer had found the petitioner partially guilty with respect to the first charge of indisciplined act with Sub Inspector Balanand Sharma whereas with respect to the second charge of irregular and immoral act, the petitioner was exonerated in absence of any indirect or direct evidence. Pursuant to the submission of charge-sheet vide order dated 28.5.2010, the respondent No. 5 inflicted a punishment of stoppage of increment for 6 months which is equivalent to one black mark. The petitioner was also not entitled to any other emoluments for the period of suspension from 21.5.2010 to 21.6.2010. Against the order of the disciplinary authority dated 28.5.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 4 which was however rejected as not maintainable in view of Rule 853 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. Heard Dr. S. N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anshuman Kumar, learned junior counsel to Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.
(3.) It has been submitted by Dr. S. N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that although the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, but no reasons have been assigned with respect to the disagreement. It has further been submitted that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner of stoppage of increments for 6 months amounting to one black mark is a major punishment and it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to issue a second show cause notice to the petitioner and that having not been done, the order of punishment dated 28.5.2010 is not in accordance with law and resultantly the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.;