PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing enquiry report dated 10.01.2013, the penal order dated 12.08.2013 and appellate order, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.07.2015 and further prayed for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that petitioner while working as Bench Clerk of learned Munsif, Civil Courts, Lohardaga some documents of Title Suit No. 07 of 2001 were found missing, which came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 05.05.2012. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner requested learned Munsif to permit him to lodge F.I.R against Seraj Ansari and Fataul Rahman, Advocate or; alternatively to the learned C.J.M, Lohardaga for registering an official complaint. But, on the contrary, the petitioner (the Bench Clerk) and Office Clerk were directed to submit show cause vide order dated 08.05.2012 for not producing the entire depositions and exhibited documents. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 14.05.2012. Thereafter, by confidential letter dated 14.05.2012, the learned Munsif, Lohardaga reported the matter to respondent no. 2. It has further been submitted that on 20.05.2012, in this regard, there was a discussion on mobile with the then Judge-in-Charge, who directed the wife of the petitioner to send a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to the then Principal District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga by 10.30 p.m in the night so that the petitioner may be saved, failing which the petitioner had to face the consequences. Thereafter, the wife of the petitioner submitted representation to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Jharkhand by her representation dated 21.05.2012 and also sent the same by FAX on 30.05.2012. It is submitted that on the very next day, the petitioner was put under suspension vide memo dated 31.05.2012. Thereafter, memo of charge was framed against the petitioner vide letter dated 12.06.2012 and departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was directed vide notice dated 18.06.2012 to appear before Enquiry Officer on 26.06.2012. But due to cardiac problem, the petitioner had time and again requested the authorities for extension of time to appear before the enquiry officer and also prayed for G.P.F advance to meet expenses to be incurred on his treatment at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. It is submitted that finally the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 11.10.2012 in the departmental proceeding from Dr. Ram Manohar Hospital Lohia Hospital at New Delhi itself by Speed Post. It has further been stated that immediately after coming from Hospital, the petitioner submitted representation dated 15.04.2013 to know the progress of departmental proceeding but it was informed that the departmental proceeding was conducted ex-parte and enquiry report was submitted on 11.01.2013 itself. Thereafter, notice was published in Daily Prabhat Khabar on 06.05.2013 directing the petitioner to submit show cause. Thereafter, the petitioner by representation dated 08.05.2013 requested the respondent no. 2 to recall the ex-parte departmental proceeding and allow the petitioner to put his defence before the Enquiry Officer, but, when no order on his representation was passed, the petitioner preferred writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 3219 of 2013. However, during pendency of the writ application, the impugned punishment order dated 12.08.2013 was passed whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services and the same was served upon the wife of the petitioner on 21.08.2013 along with copy of impugned order, enquiry report and the copy of show cause notice dated 19.01.2013. Hence, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2014 giving liberty to assail the impugned order of dismissal. Being aggrieved the impugned order of dismissal from services dated 12.08.2013, the petitioner preferred appeal and the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand has been pleased to reject the appeal and the order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.07.2015.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the factual aspect of the matter submitted that the entire case record of the T.S. No. 07 of 2001 was brought by the peon on the order of Presiding Officer from the office one day before i.e. 04.05.2012 and the same was carried to the residential office of learned Munsif, Lohardaga and on the next day i.e. on 05.05.2012, the same was brought in the Court, where the Presiding Officer kept the same in his custody and dictated the order and accordingly learned Munsif himself handed over the entire file to learned lawyer of plaintiff, Sri F. Rahman for necessary amendment in the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that copies of the depositions of the witnesses examined during the course of enquiry were never supplied to the petitioner nor any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. It has further been submitted that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted behind the back of the petitioner in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that previous punishment, if any, if not included in the memo of charge, cannot be taken into consideration while passing the order of punishment, but, in the instant case, this established principle of law has been given a complete go by.;