PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) WHILE serving as Registrar, Health and Assistant Director (Administration), petitioner was placed under suspension vide Memo No. 106 (5) dated 25th January, 2002 on the basis of certain allegations. Suspension was followed by service of charge sheet under Memo No. 692 (5) dated 10th April, 2002 and simultaneously one Dr. D.K. Raman, Deputy Director (Administration) was appointed as the Conducting Officer. Petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. As many as 3 charges were framed against him. While enquiry was being conducted, suspension of the petitioner came to be revoked vide Office Order contained in Memo No. 999 (5) dated 17th June, 2002. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Report after conducting departmental proceedings vide Memo No. 235 dated 16th September, 2002. It is stated that the Enquiry Officer exonerated the Officer from all the three charges for which enquiry was conducted. It is further alleged that the file was placed before the Hon ble Minister for Health, who recommended for exoneration of the petitioner with a direction that a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees Five thousand) recommended by the Enquiry Officer to be recovered from the petitioner and the Cashier be recovered from one Gopal Sharan Sharma, Cashier. The Disciplinary authority, however, issued a second show cause notice dated 27th February, 2003 to the petitioner asking him to show cause why he be not dismissed from service. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order No. 16/sa. SA - 232/2002 k.a. 369 dated 12th May, 2004, whereby petitioner has been demoted from the post of Registrar to the post of Assistant with a further direction that the petitioner shall be entitled to only subsistence allowance for the period of suspension from 25th January, 2002 to 16th June, 2002. This order was challenged before the Appellate Authority. In the meanwhile petitioner has been permanently allocated the State of Jharkhand vide Officer Order No. 265 dated 30th April, 2005 and since then petitioner is working as Assistant in the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order by disagreeing with the Enquiry Report without recording any reasons for such disagreement and without even communicating the reasons to the petitioner in the second show cause.
(2.) MR . Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further stated that the charge against the petitioner is vague and there is no specific allegation, hence the charge itself is required to be quashed. He has also stated that there is no evidence against him and the order of the Disciplinary Authority is perverse in nature without there being any material against the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed, it is mentioned that the Disciplinary Authority is not bound to agree with the Enquiry Officer and is the competent authority to pass appropriate orders.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. From the Enquiry Report dated 16th September, 2002 (Annexure -9), it appears that the Enquiry Officer has not recorded any adverse finding against the petitioner but only suggested that recovery of Rs. 5,000.00 can be considered from the petitioner and one Gopal Sharan Sharma, who was cashier at the relevant time. From Annexure -10, it appears that the Minister of Health has recorded that Rs. 5,000.00 be recovered from the cashier. The second show cause notice dated 02nd September, 2003 (Annexure -11) only require the petitioner to furnish his reply to the Enquiry Report within 15 days and he has been asked to show cause why he be not dismissed from service and also to show cause as to why the Enquiry Report be not accepted on account of negligence of duty, financial irregularities and misuse of administrative powers. There is not even a whisper in the said show cause notice as to whether the Disciplinary authority has applied its mind to the Enquiry Report and has satisfied itself. Even the areas of disagreement and the ground thereof are also not indicated. In the impugned order dated 12th May, 2004, further while referring to the defects, it has only been stated that the Secretary while disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer has opined that it is a case of dismissal.;