N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Letter No. 1160 dated 5.6.2006 issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby the decision has been taken to dismiss the petitioner from service and to recover certain amounts from him. The petitioner has further sought for revocation of his suspension and also for payment of salary and other allowances.
(2.) THE short facts of the petitioner's case are that the petitioner was appointed on Class -II post in Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department in the year 1972. In the year 1981 he was promoted to Class -I post. The petitioner was transferred and posted at several places between the years 1972 and 1996 without any blemish and adverse remark. In the year 1997, while he was working as the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Saran Division, the petitioner was put under suspension by the department by letter dated 1.2.1997. Thereafter, the memorandum of charges was also served on him initiating the departmental proceeding against him. The petitioner challenged the same in a writ petition being CWJC No. 2316/97 filed in the Patna High Court. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry by 31.12.1997, failing which it was directed that the charge -sheet as well as the suspension order shall stand quashed w.e.J. 1.1.1998. The enquiry could not be concluded by 31.12.1997 and the department then filed a petition for extension of time for concluding the enquiry, but the same was rejected. The petitioner, thus, resumed his work w.e.f. 1.1.1998 as the Regional Director of the said department. In the year 1999 the petitioner was transferred and posted as Regional Director, North Chotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh. Which he was working as the Regional Director, North Chotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh, some dispute arose between him and the Deputy Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh. The sad dispute was brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand as also the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Government of India. Out of the said dispute and mala fide, the Divisional Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh alleged as many as 27 more charges against the petitioner by his letter No. 236 dated 13.8.2001 (Annexure -5) including the charge - sheet which already stood quashed by virtue of the order of the Patna High Court dated 5.8.1997 (Annexure -4). The subsequent charge -sheet was issued on 1.1.1998 in which the charges which already stood quashed were also incorporated among the 27 charges. The said memo of charges containing 27 numbers of charges was inquired into by a Joint Secretary, who after enquiry found all the charges false, fabricated and baseless (Annexure6). The Secretary forwarded the said charges to the Cabinet Vigilance by Letter No. 1349 dated 24.8.2001 for further enquiry. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(S) No. 4111/01 in this Court. The said writ petition is still pending in this Court. However, Secretary of the department by Letter No. 1158 dated 7.5.2004 suddenly asked of an explanation on some other charges which the petitioner replied by Memo No. 732 dated 9.8.2004 denying the said charges. The secretary by Memo No. 380 dated 25.2.2005 again put the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. A charge -sheet was then followed by Memo No. 534 dated 17.3.2005 containing as many as 19 charges against the petitioner regarding unauthorised absence, indicipline and illegal appointment made by him. An enquiry officer and presenting officer were also appointed and the petitioner was asked to file his defence. The petitioner challenged the same in a writ petition being WP(S) No. 1310/05, but the some was dismissed by order dated 21.3.2005 directing he respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding as soon as possible. An appeal being LPA No. 347/05 was also filed against the said order dated 21.3.2005, but the same was also dismissed by order dated 4.1.2006. In the mean time, the Cabinet Vigilance Department concluded the enquiry on 27 charges and submitted the enquiry report by Letter No. 690 dated 16.5.2005 wherein the charge of illegal appointment was only proved and the remaining charges were not proved against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no illegal appointment was ever made by him and only the services of two persons were confirmed by him in the year 1988. The respondents thereafter submitted a supplementary charge -sheet containing three articles of charges vide Memo No. 1688 dated 25.7.2005. One Mr. Bakshi Narendra Prasad Sinha was appointed as enquiry officer and a copy of which was also given to the petitioner (Annexure -12). The petitioner filed his defence denying all the charges and praying to drop the proceeding and exonerate him. However, the enquiry officer proceeded further with the enquiry. The petitioner appeared and requested for supply of several documents on the basis of which the charges were levelled against him, but all the required documents were not supplied to him. No witness was examined in presence of the petitioner and there was no question of cross -examining the witnesses as the required documents were not ever brought and exhibited. The enquiry was thus proceeded and concluded in perfunctory manner and till date even the enquiry report has not been given to the petitioner. Though the charges were not proved against the petitioner, yet the second show -cause notice has been issued proposing dismissal of the petitioner's service and recovery of some Government amounts from him as mentioned in the said order. The petitioner has assailed the said order of his proposed dismissal on the ground of mala fide, personnel grudge, arbitrariness and illegality. Parallel enquiry was also held by the Cabinet Vigilance Department which submitted its report by Letter No. 690 dated 18.6.2005 wherein almost all the charges were not found proved against the petitioner except one i.e. regarding illegal appointment made by him. It has been stated that the said order as also the petitioner's suspension from the month of March 2006 are wholly arbitrary and highly unjust and there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice and also the Articles 14, 16, 21, 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that the allegation of arbitrariness and mala fide are wholly baseless and that the petitioner was even proceeded against earlier in the undivided State of Bihar. However, the charge -sheet was quashed on the ground of delay in CWJC No. 2316/97 by the Patna High Court. There was complain against the petitioner while he was posted as the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, North Chotanagpur Region, Hazaribagh that the petitioner did not cooperate with the enquity. Subsequently, the Secretary, Animal Husbandly and Fisheries Department, Government of Jharkhand, namely Mr. P.K. Jajoria and the then Divisional Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh had made available the relevant documents including the list of 27 grave charges to the department. After consideration of the records and the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the department with approval of the Chief Minister took a decision to suspend the petitioner and to initiate a departmental proceeding against him. The petitioner was thus put under suspension by a departmental Memo No. 380 dated 25.2.2005 fixing his Head Quarter at the Office of the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner by Memo No. 534 dated 17.3.2005 containing 19 charges. Mr. Bakshi Narendra Kumar Sinha, Under Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Cabinet (Vigilance) Department submitted the enquiry report by its Letter No. 690 dated 18.6.2005 and in view of the said report, a supplementary charge -sheet was served containing three more charges by Letter No. 1688 dated 25.7.2005. Then the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being WP(S) No. 1310/05 against his suspension, but by order dated 21.3.2005 his writ petition was dismissed and the State Government was directed to conclude the departmental proceeding expeditiously. The petitioner then preferred appeal against the said order being LPA No. 349/2005 which was also dismissed by order dated 14.1.2006. The petitioner had requested to supply the documents and most of the documents were made available to the petitioner Some documents quoted by him were not found relevant. The petitioner did not pray for examining or cross -examining any witness. A photo copy of the enquiry report dated 30.3.2003 submitted by Dr. P.N. Vidyarthi, the then Joint Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Jharkhand was sent to the petitioner by departmental Letter No. 2240 dated 5.10.2005 by Registered Post (Annexure -Q). A photo copy of the complaint received from the MLAs was also supplied to the petitioner. In view of the Letter No. 290 (Personal) dated 7.12.2005 of the petitioner, Dr. Kameshwar Prasad, Regional Director, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka was directed to supply the photo copies of the essential documents to the petitioner by departmental letter No. 3788 dated 19.12.2005. The department, however, refused to supply the photo copies of some of the documents on the ground that the final order passed by the then Chief Minister for initiating a departmental proceeding was only relevant and the official notings on the basis of which the said decision was taken by the Chief Minister have no relevance. Considering the grave charges against the petitioner, the then Chief Minister had approved both the decisions i.e. for putting the petitioner under suspension and for initiating a departmental proceeding against him. On the basis of the enquiry report dated 15.4.2006 submitted in the departmental proceeding, the comments of the Principal Secretary to the Government on each charge, written explanations submitted by the petitioner and other relevant records/evidences available in the files in the department, the charge Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10 and 11 (Partial), 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 and the charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 of the supplementary charge -sheet were found proved and on the basis thereof, the State Government has taken a decision to dismiss the petitioner from the services and to recover the amounts of loss caused to the Government by virtue of the wrong conduct/decision of the petitioner which was also approved by the Chief Minister in the capacity of the present departmental Minister. However, before issuing a final order of dismissal or for recovery of any amount, copies of the relevant paragraphs of the enquiry report and second show -cause were served on the petitioner and he was directed to file his reply within 15 days from the date of receiving of the order dated 5.6.2006. The petitioner received the said letter and requested to supply the attested copies of the complete enquiry report submitted on 15.4.2006 and requested to give him further two months' time for submitting his reply. Oh his request, attested copy of the enquiry report was sent by Registered Post to the petitioner directing him to submit his show - cause within a period of 15 days from the date of receiving the letter. However, the Postal Departmental returned the letter showing the petitioner absent. An extra copy thereof was made available to Dr. Kameshwar Prasad, Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka on 10.7.2006 to serve on the petitioner at Dumka, but it was informed that the petitioner was absent from the Head Quarter. The said letter was returned to the department. A notice was also published in the newspapers, namely, the 'Prabhat Khabar' and the 'Hindustan Times' on 1.8.2006. It has been further stated that on 15.4.2006 while the petitioner was posted as Project Officer, Lager Ship Breeding Farm, Chatra, he illegally appointed three persons and illegally promoted one person without following the prescribed norms and procedures. The petitioner has also committed several irregularities. The petitioner was also made an accused in a criminal case and he was not given Senior Selection Grade by the Departmental Promotion Committee by its decision dated 11.12.2003. There was, thus, no illegality or mala fide as alleged by the petitioner in taking the impugned decisions against him. The petitioner has not given particulars to explain the personal grudge or enmity of the Secretary, Mr. P.K. Jajoria against him.;