PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing memo dated 26.05.2012 issued by respondent no. 2, whereby punishment of censure and stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.
(2.) Sans details, brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that a memo of charge was framed against the petitioner in Prapatra-Ka containing altogether eight charges related to his tenure as Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda. It has been submitted that on the basis of said allegations explanation was sought from the petitioner, which he explained vide his representation dated 20.05.2011 stating that somebody is behind the same and at the time of taking charge also a different environment was created and petitioner was threatened to be disturbed in future. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda by letter dated 23.05.2011 directed the petitioner to submit explanation, to which, he replied vide representation dated 14.06.2011 stating that the required documents be provided to him so that he may submit appropriate explanation. However, by letter dated 01.08.2011, the petitioner submitted his explanation contending therein that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to submit written statement of defence on the date fixed in the enquiry i.e. on 02.09.2011. It has been submitted that the Sub-divisional Officer, Godda by letter dated 23.08.2011 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Godda that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to take such step by the petitioner as the same was done in the public interest. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda by letter dated 23.12.2011 explained to the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka that the steps that were taken by the petitioner was in public interest to start public distribution system. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner on being asked submitted his reply before Enquiry Officer stating that the allegation levelled against the petitioner was with mala fide intention. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner submitted a detailed reply in the form of written statement of defence stating that the petitioner is fit to be exonerated in view of the facts and situation explained by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter without serving copy of enquiry report, straightway the order of punishment vide memo no. 26.05.2012 was passed by which punishment of censure and stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before passing the impugned order of punishment, the petitioner has not been supplied the copy of enquiry report, and it is settled principles of law that non-serving of enquiry report itself is a sufficient ground to set aside the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that because of non-serving of enquiry report, the petitioner is not in a position to know as to whether the charges have been proved against the petitioner or not, therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced because of non-serving of the enquiry report before passing the impugned order. It has further been submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide letter dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure 11) informed the Commissioner in no uncertain terms that the petitioner took the decision in public interest, which was necessary to start public distribution system shops, therefore, no case is made out against the petitioner even to proceed departmentally. Learned counsel further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Godda further vide letter dated 20.09.2011 opined that on the basis of explanation and enquiry report, it appears that the delinquent-petitioner revoked the suspension of PDS shopkeepers in the circumstances and exercised his discretion, which was necessary to start Public Distribution System. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the entire departmental proceeding, the irrelevant materials were considered and the relevant materials have been ignored, therefore, the entire departmental proceeding was vitiated in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submitted that none of the documents were proved by the witnesses and not a single witness has been examined. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors as reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570.;