PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Memo of Charge, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide letter dated 01.10.2010 (Annexure -10) and for quashing of the entire proceeding as well as the order of dismissal vide memo dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure -16), issued under signature of the Respondent No. 4 and further prayer has been made for reinstatement to the post with all consequential service benefits.
(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was initially appointed on State Civil Service on 01.03.1993 by the erstwhile Government of Bihar on the recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission. In course of time, the petitioner was given the Junior Selection Grade during 2005. The petitioner was posted as SDO, Chas, which is in the district of Bokaro for the period from 08.03.2006 to 27.08.2007. In the year 1984, during Sikh Riot, the State Government provided relief fund to the Riot victims and the amount was to be distributed by the State Nazarat. The then Additional Collector on 08.07.1988 directed the then S.D.O., Chas to provide interim relief to the Riot victims including three persons, namely, 1. Sardar Sardul Singh Kalsi, 2. Smt. Gurucharan Kour and
(3.) Sardar Sarbjeet Singh Kalsi for the injury sustained on account of Riot to the tune of Rs.1,000/ -. In compliance of the order of the Additional Collector, Bokaro, the then S.D.O. Chas vide memo dated 01.08.1988 disbursed the amount of Rs. 1,000/ - each to the said persons. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, issued order dated 31.08.1993 directing the then Dy. Collector, Nazarat, Bokaro for payment of Rs. 48,000/ - in favour of Sardar Sardul Singh Kalsi for the loss suffered on account of Riot to his business premises Hotel Allora in Bokaro Steel City and it was directed that payment shall be paid to the victim by 01.09.1993 and the victim Sardar Sardul Singh Kalsi received amount of Rs.48,000/ - on 01.09.1993 from Dy. Collector, District Nazarat, Bokaro, as is evident from Annexure -2 and 2/A of the writ petition. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms before making payment of Rs.48,000/ - in favour of Sardar Sardul Singh Kalsi, has made an assessment of Rs.5,50,000/ - as a loss to the industry vide his letter dated 04.07.1988. A further assessment of Rs.1,63,000/ - was estimated for payment on account of loss suffered by his son businessman Sardar Sarbjeet Singh Kalsi by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bokaro. It is clarified that an amount of Rs.5,50,000/ - and Rs.1,63,000/ - was assessed by the then D.C.L.R. for Sarabjit industries, while Rs.48,000/ - was paid out of the loss of Allora Hotel owned by the Sardar Sardul Singh Kalsi. Subsequently, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, issued a Circular dated 16.01.2006, sanctioning the rehabilitation package to provide reliefs to the victims of 1984 Riots and accordingly, modalities for payment and the quantum of payment was specified. In pursuance to the said Circular, the Government of Jharkhand, Ministry of Home Affairs, issued a notification dated 07.03.2006, directing all the Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police and the Additional Collector of the District to constitute a Committee of four members to scrutinize the "Rehabilitation package" consisting of Deputy Commissioner as President and S.P., A.C. and representative from minority Commission as the members of the Committee. In the said letter, it has been specifically directed that the Dy. Commissioner shall be the Drawing and Disbursing authority of the relief package and a cut off date was also mentioned on each letter. The meeting was held on 29.03.2007 in which the claims of six persons including Sarabjit Singh Kalasi and Sardul Singh Kalasi were also to be considered. The meeting was presided over by the Dy. Commissioner, Bokaro and claim in favour of five persons was accepted and the claim amount was considered on the basis of the assessment made by D.C.L.R., Bokaro dated 04.07.1988 and the petitioner attended the meeting in the capacity of the S.D.O., Chas. The minutes of the meeting was circulated by the Dy. Commissioner, Bokaro vide Memo dated 31.03.2007, as per Annexure -6 to the writ petition. The then Dy. Commissioner, Bokaro appointed the petitioner as the Drawing and Disbursing authority vide memo dated 16.03.2007 for an amount of Rs.1,90,000,00/ - for the Rehabilitation package. In pursuance to the order issued by the Additional Collector vide his letter dated 31.03.2007 opened the file bearing No. -107/06 -07 for Sarabjit Singh Kalasi and 109/06 -07 for Sardul Singh Kalasi for payment. Accordingly, payment was made to the said Sarabjit Singh Kalasi and Sardul Singh Kalasi vide account payee Cheque and a receiving dated 13.04.2007 was sent alongwith the compliance report by the petitioner as per Annexure -9 to the writ application. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Hazaribagh as a District Supply Officer on 27.08.2007 but to the utter surprise, the petitioner received letter dated 14.02.2011 along with the Memo of Charge dated 01.10.2010 issued under the signature of the Dy. Commissioner, Bokaro on the allegation that the victims Sarabjit Singh Kalasi and Sardul Singh Kalasi have been paid Rs.71,30,000/ - instead of Rs.4,32,000/ -, as he had received an amount of Rs.48,000/ - from District Nazarat, as is evident from Annexure -10 and 10/A to the writ petition and after receipt of the show cause notice dated 14.02.2011, issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, the petitioner submitted his reply on 23.07.2011, denying the allegations levelled against him. Being dissatisfied with the show cause reply, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, decided to initiate Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner vide memo dated 30.07.2011 and the Inquiry Officer was appointed. After commencement of the Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner asked for documents and evidence on the basis of which charge was framed. The demands were made on 19.08.2011, 27.08.2011 and 29.09.2011 but the petitioner was not provided with the documents, asked for, so as to deprive him to put forth his case and to prove his innocence. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued second show cause vide letter dated 12.01.2013, along with the punishment of dismissal from service as per Annexure -14 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondents issued dismissal order under the signature of the respondent no. 4 vide Memo dated 16.09.2015, as evident from Annexure -16 to the writ petition. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the charges issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Bokaro vide letter dated 01.10.2010, was concocted, perverse and illegal in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been singled out for the act of omissions and commissions, committed by the responsible persons, including respondent nos. 5 to 8 and the the collective decisions, taken by the Committee constituted by the Government of Jharkhand was that the entire blame could not have been apportioned on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the enquiry, which has commenced, after initiation of the departmental proceedings, was in fact, a sham and an eye -wash without complying the principles of natural justice, thereby violating Articles 311 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the very initiation of the Departmental Proceeding, till its culmination, there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the Departmental Proceeding got vitiated on account of non -supply of the necessary documents on the basis of which the petitioner has been found guilty and the subsequent action by the respondents smacks of mala fide and ulterior motive.;