- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the order of penalty dated 10th October, 2006 and the appellate order dated 27th September, 2007. The writ petitioner was imposed with the following penalty by the disciplinary authority: (i) stoppage of six increments with cumulative effect (ii) Denial of full pay and other allowances under Rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, and (iii) Debarment from future promotion.
(3.) Writ petitioner had urged that the disciplinary authority without recording reasons for disagreement with the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer for imposition of minor penalty, proceeded to impose major penalty upon the delinquent employee. The order of the disciplinary authority is cryptic, without application of mind and does not contain any reasons dealing with the show-cause furnished by the employee. The punishment of stoppage of six increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate assuming that the charges were established, though the Enquiry Officer did not find any direct evidence of complicity of the writ petitioner, but had held that he was squarely responsible for interpolation being the custodian of the records and hence, liable for minor punishment.;