Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the notification bearing memo No. 1574 dated 2.7.2013 (Annexure -15) passed by the Special Secretary, Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand where under he has been imposed with the punishment of warning and the relevant punishment be recorded in his service book as well. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the notification bearing memo No. 1528 dated 21.7.2014 (Annexure -18) of the same department where under it has been held that petitioner would not be entitled to full salary except the subsistence allowance for the period 25.10.2011 to 11.1.2012, though the said period would be reckoned for the purpose of computing post retirement benefits.
(2.) Petitioner has superannuated w.e.f. 31.7.2013 itself and has also preferred another writ petition being W.P.S. 5019 of 2014, which is said to be pending before this Court. As it appear from perusal of the content of the writ petition and the documents enclosed that petitioner was proceeded under resolution bearing memo No. 1632 dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure -10) for certain charges including the appointment of two Computer Operators in violation of the departmental Rules and without approval of the competent authority. The 3rd charge related to distribution of blankets in the district of Palamau to the below poverty line persons in which substantial amount of the allotment were surrendered. Petitioner while posted as Assistant Director, Social Security Cell, Palamau also was placed under suspension by order bearing memo No. 1633 dated 25.10.2011, which was revoked vide order bearing No. 30 dated 19.1.2012 (Annexure -12). The Enquiry Officer after conclusion of the enquiry found 2 charges against the petitioner established while in respect of 3rd charge, it was found to be partially proven for which the Deputy Development Commissioner was also found responsible in the enquiry report dated 2.4.2013 (Annexure -14).
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the enquiry surfers from non -appreciation of the material adduced and guilt of the petitioner could not be finally established on the basis of material available before the Enquiry Officer. Punishment is wholly unwarranted and unjustified in the eye of law. Similarly, withholding of full salary for the period of suspension is wholly bad in law.;