- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner -appellant against the order dated 12.10.2004 passed in W.P(S).No. 5486/2004 whereby his writ application has been dismissed.
(2.) THE writ application was filed seeking the following reliefs : (i) For quashing the order passed by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Memo No. 889/Estb./dated 15.6.04 (Annexure -15) whereby the petitioner was reverted from the post of Company Commandant to the Initial post of Nayak when the petitioner was about to retire. (ii) For quashing the order passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in Memo No. 1277/Estb./dated 24.8.04 (Annexure -19) whereby the petitioner 'sappeal was summarily rejected. (iii) For a direction to the respondents for payment of his salary for the months of July and September 2003 and also for the month of June 2004 including the arrears of enhanced D.A. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that the appellant -petitioner was posted as Company Commandant at Garhwa and was given charge w.e.f 1.4.03. However, the key of the Almirah was not handed over to him and the same was with one Mithilesh Kr. Sinha. On 2.9.03 the appellant found one cheque No. 523800 missing from the cheque book. He immediately issued a letter by Memo No. 250/2.9.03 to the said Mithilesh Kr. Sinha asking him as to how the said cheque was missing from the cheque book which was in his custody. On the same day the appellant issued another letter to the concerned Bank requesting them to stop payment of the said cheque. He also communicated the same to the police station and to the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa. When the District Commandant, Garhwa resumed his duty on 8.8.93 after availing leave, the appellant immediately informed him also about the same. On that basis, the District Commandant lodged an F.I.R dated 11.9.03 being Garhwa P.S. Case No. 204/03. Though the appellant had detected the said illegality and informed all those concerned and on the basis of his information the said case was instituted, yet surprisingly the appellant was immediately put under suspension by order dated 24.9.03 issued by respondent No. 3 alleging that the appellant was also involved in the illegal withdrawal of the money. However, no proceeding was initiated against him. The appellant then moved this Court against the said order in W.P(S) No. 1502/04, which was disposed of by order dated 17.2.04 with a direction to the respondents to initiate a departmental proceeding and conclude the same within four months. Thereafter a departmental proceeding being No. 1/04 was initiated against the appellant and a Memo containing article of charges was served on him. The respondent No. 5 was appointed enquiry officer. He directed the appellant to submit his written reply within one week. For filing an effective reply the petitioner demanded several relevant documents by his representation dated 24.3.04, but all the requisite papers were not supplied to him. The petitioner, as directed, filed his reply. In course of the enquiry, the department examined five witnesses. Ram Naresh Pd., Deputy Manager -cum -Passing Officer, S.B.I, Garhwa was also examined as one of the witnesses who stated that there was no evidence on record to show that withdrawal was done on the basis of forged signature. On the same day i.e. on 17.5.04 defence witnesses were examined and without supplying a copy of enquiry report, the respondent No. 5 directed the petitioner to submit his last show cause reply. The petitioner filed the same on 21.5.04. The petitioner had denied all the charges and stated that none of the charges could be proved against him. However, without considering the appellant 'sreply and without any material to substantiate the charges, he was awarded major punishment by reverting him to the initial post of Nayak. The petitioner preferred an appeal, but that was also summarily rejected.
(3.) IT has been submitted that learned Single Judge without appreciating the points raised in the writ application, dismissed the same by the impugned order. It has been submitted that the appellant initially joined his service as Nayak, the post, which has now been abolished. He has been reverted to the corresponding post of Sipahi and thereby has been downgraded to two lower ranks. The said punishment is harsh and arbitrary, inasmuch as, it amounts to double punishment coupled with forfeiture of all incentives earned during the entire service period which would also go to affect his pensionary and other retiral benefits as the appellant was to retire on 31.10.04 (since retired). By another letter being Memo No. 935/23.6.04 the period of suspension from 24.9.03 to 10.6.04 has been sought to be adjusted against the period of earned leave on half pay and the appellant 'ssalary for the period of suspension has been denied. According to the appellant, the said orders are wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither the enquiry report was supplied to him nor he was given proper opportunity of hearing.;