Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing the order as contained in memo dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure-7) issued by the respondent no.3 pertaining to the punishment of recovery of Rs.3,37,263/- along with interest 12% per annum, withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect, further withholding of promotion for the period of 3 years from the due date and it has been directed that all the punishment will be entered in the service book of the petitioner and the petitioner has further prayed for appropriate direction upon the respondents to forthwith release entire arrears of difference of salary along with interest.
(2.) The facts as emanated from the writ application, in nutshell is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the States Subsidized High School, Khunti in the year 1995. From the date of joining in the said post, the petitioner has discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his authorities. In the year 2004-05, various school of the State of Jharkhand were selected to be developed as model schools in order to bring them as per national standard. Amount of Rs.18,65,00000/- was granted for the aforesaid work. The petitioner being the junior most teacher in the school was assigned work of development in the question. Petitioner purchased furniture and other materials for construction work of the school, material which were purchased lying in the premises of the school and were stolen and reported the matter to the police with respect of stealing of the goods. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from the said school to the Scheduled Caste High School, Bhalubasa, Jamshedpur, Thereafter the petitioner was communicated with the order dated 09.03.2007 whereby the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding for the allegation that the petitioner has not completed the work assigned to him which resulted in the theft of the materials and it was ordered that the petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance only. During the continuation of suspension, the petitioner submitted representation for requesting to invoke the suspension and also to pay subsistence allowance as evident from Annexure-4 to the writ application. Thereafter, on 29.05.2007 the memorandum of charge, three allegations were furnished to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to file his reply. After receipt of the said charge, the petitioner submitted a detailed representations annexing relevant documents to enable him to file reply to the charges as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ application. Due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner was compelled to file being W.P.(S) No.4072 of 2007 which was disposed of on 16.08.2007, thereafter, another W.P.(S) No.1951 of 2008 was filed for disposal of the departmental proceeding since the impugned order was passed on 19.12.2008. The said writ petition became infructuous. Finally, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 19.12.2008. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure-7) to the writ application the petitioner left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order of punishment dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure-7) to the writ application is assailable on the ground, no copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite writing to the respondent authority for supply of the relevant documents, the same was not provided to the petitioner nor the petitioner was given opportunity to cross examine the material witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that the copy of the second show cause notice has not been issued to the petitioner which is another infirmity which has materially affected the outcome of the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that non-supply of the inquiry report has caused prejudice because the petitioner was not able to know about inquiry report and the supply of the inquiry report is a sine-qua-non for just and fair disciplinary proceeding. In the instant case, non-supply of the same has vitiated the proceeding thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order of punishment is liable to be set aside. In order to butress his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors.;