Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 29.06.2013 (as contained in Annexure -5) pertaining to the order of punishment of 'censure' in the departmental proceeding and for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 till the disposal of the writ application.
(2.) The facts as disclosed in the instant writ application, in short, is that when being posted at Ramgarh, chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on 11.06.2012 on the allegation of unsatisfactory performance so far as purchase of milch cattle for the year 2011 -12 under the 'Rashtriya Krishi Vikash Yojana' is concerned. In pursuance to the said charges, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply denying the allegations/charges and in the said reply, the petitioner has stated about the year wise target, which he has achieved. The matter was enquired into and the charges levelled against the petitioner was not proved by the enquiry officer but the enquiry officer recommended that petitioner should be warned for satisfactory and speedy work in future. Finally, the punishment of censure was awarded to the petitioner.
(3.) Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the respondents have not given any cogent reason before adverting to the report of the enquiry officer and the impugned order of punishment has been passed in spite of the fact that none of the charges against the petitioner has been proved and the decision taken by the respondents in inflicting punishment is without any material and is based on no evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before infliction of punishment, no second show -cause was issued to the petitioner, which has vitiated the decision making process. Learned counsel further submits that the letter dated 21.01.2013 of the Government of Jharkhand, Animal Husbandary & Fisheries Development (Annexure -6/1) discloses that the so -called allegation of not achieving the target, has, in fact, been achieved, therefore, the allegation on which the charges were framed is vague and evasive so as to apportion blame on the performance of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard, has referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v/s. Kunj Behari Misra reported in [ : (1998) 7 SCC 84] : "19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7 (2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer." In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Paras 30, 34 & 40 in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Others v/s. Kamal Swaroop Tandon reported in [ : (2008) 2 SCC 41] In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: - - "(i) : (2013) 7 SCC 251, Paras 7, 13 and 20 (ii) : (2006) 3 SCC 690, Para 14";