Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 05.08.2016, by which, the petitioner has been imposed with punishment of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 05.08.2016 and also for direction upon the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the next higher post with effect from the date of his juniors were promoted.
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner initially joined services in Bihar Administrative Services and after bifurcation of the Cadre, he was allocated the cadre of State of Jharkhand and at present he is posted at Jamshedpur as District Welfare Officer. It has been averred that while the petitioner was posted as Deputy Collector Land Reform, Chaibasa Sadar, he was served with one memorandum of charge alleging therein altogether six charges with respect to commission of some irregularity in course of his official duty. Basing on which a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which led to passing of impugned order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that upon consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the competent authority has given its opinion that a regular departmental proceeding would be a wastage of time, hence, opinion was given to impose minor punishment, which would be apparent from note dated 10.03.2010 and thereafter vide note dated 6.11.2010 the decision was taken to impose minor punishment like censure and the same was forwarded to Principal Secretary of the Department for its approval, which was accepted on 23.11.2010 and opinion was given that no departmental proceeding is required to be initiated. With the aforesaid note, the Principal Secretary addressed to the then Chief Secretary but the Chief Secretary differed with the opinion and recommended to impose major punishment by way of imposing withholding one increment with cumulative effect and the petitioner will not be entitled to get his promotion for one year. And, thereafter file was again sent to Deputy Secretary and regular departmental proceeding was initiated after lapse of about three years and after five years therefrom departmental proceeding was concluded, which adversely affected the service career of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that charges framed against the petitioner are vague in nature. It has been submitted that the departmental proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularity as before imposing the impugned punishment no enquiry report was served upon the petitioner, which vitiates the entire departmental proceeding. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors, 1993 4 SCC 727.;