Allowed

Ram Bahadur Rai v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC27 Mar 2019LPA/113/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal allowed the quashing of departmental orders. The court held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment necessitating a second show cause notice. Furthermore, imposing such punishment without adducing evidence is illegal. The impugned orders were set aside. quality: ok

What did the court decide?

The orders of punishment and appeal dismissal were quashed; the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed; the Single Judge's order was set aside.

Ram Bahadur Rai Vs State of Jharkhand And… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 113 of 2012 with

¶2

I.A. No. 3581 of 2017 with I.A. No. 1097 of 2019

¶3

Ram Bahadur Rai ..... … Petitioner Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Secretary,

¶8

Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Joint Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

Public Health Engineering Department,

¶11

Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. .…. … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

¶15

For the Appellant : In person. For the State of Bihar : Mr. Ramit Satender, Advocate. For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, G.P.-VI.

¶16

¶17

12/ 27.03.2019 Heard the appellant in person and learned counsels for the State.

¶18

2 . This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.1.2012, passed in W.P.(S) No. 3734 of 2006, whereby, the writ application filed by the petitioner appellant, challenging the punishment imposed upon him in the disciplinary proceeding, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.

¶19

In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order of punishment dated 15.6.1999, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent No. 4, as contained in Annexure-9 to the memo of appeal, whereby the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner had also challenged the order dated 23.12.2009, passed by the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure-10 to the memo of appeal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment, was dismissed.

¶20

-2-

¶21

It may be stated that the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority before the bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand, from the State of Bihar. The petitioner had preferred his appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, which was considered and dismissed by the Appellate Authority in the successor State of Jharkhand.

¶22

The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as a Junior Engineer, in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, when he was subjected to the departmental disciplinary proceeding for various misconducts, which ultimately culminated in the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. There was also an order of recovery of the amount of Rs. 9343.80/- from the petitioner, which admittedly, was deducted from his salary. The Hon’ble Single Judge did not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary as well as Appellate Authority, and dismissed the writ application of the writ petitioner.

¶23

When this matter was heard by us, on the previous occasion on 27.2.2019, it had transpired that no second show cause notice was given to the delinquent, stating that the punishment which was imposed upon him was a minor punishment. Upon going through the enquiry report, we were also of the view that only the memo of charges, and the reply of the delinquent, had been considered by the Enquiry Officer, but there was no discussion about any evidence adduced during the disciplinary proceeding. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the onus of proving himself innocent, had been thrown upon the delinquent. Faced with this situation, we directed the learned counsel for the State for seeking fresh instructions with respect to the aforesaid facts.

¶24

Learned counsel for the State, after seeking instructions, has very fairly submitted that no second show cause notice was given to the delinquent before imposing the punishment, and has also admitted that no evidence was adduced in the departmental proceeding. These facts, however, had missed the attention of the Hon’ble Single Judge, while deciding the writ application.

¶25

-3-

¶26

Law is well settled that the punishment of stoppage of annual increments with cumulative effect, is a major punishment and not a minor punishment. Reference in this regard may be had to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab , reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 , and also in Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Raj Kumar Goel , reported in (2014) 15 SCC 748 , laying down the law as follows:-

¶27

" 9. -------------. There can be no cavil over the proposition that when a punishment of stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is imposed, it is a major punishment. In this regard, we may refer with profit to the decision in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab wherein it has been held that withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly would be a minor punishment but withholding of increments with cumulative effect, the consequences being quite hazardous to the employee, it would come in the compartment of major punishment. Proceeding further the two-Judge Bench stated thus: (SCC pp. 507-08, para 4)

¶28

“4. … But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty forever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years’ increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent.”

¶29

After so observing, the Court treated the said punishment to be a major penalty. -------------."

¶30

In view of the settled proposition of law that stoppage of annual increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment, we are of the considered view that such punishment could not have been imposed upon the writ petitioner, without giving him the second show cause notice.

¶31

-4-

¶32

Even otherwise, no punishment could be imposed upon the petitioner in a disciplinary proceeding, in which, no evidence was adduced and only the memo of charges, and the reply of the delinquent, were considered. Any such disciplinary proceeding, in our considered view, is camouflage in the eyes of law. As such the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, suffer from patent and inherent illegality, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶33

For the foregoing reasons, the order of punishment dated 15.6.1999, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., respondent No. 4, as contained in Annexure-9 to the memo of appeal, as also the order dated 23.12.2009, passed by the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure-10 to the memo of appeal, are hereby, quashed. The appellant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits.

¶34

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 10.1.2012, passed in W.P.(S) No. 3734 of 2006, by the Hon’ble Single Judge, also cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and the same, is hereby, set aside.

¶35

This Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly, allowed. Both the aforesaid interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

¶36

(H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶37

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶38

Amitesh/-

Ram Bahadur Rai v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bahadur Rai v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand

Shahid Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Taslim Khan And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamuna Kumar Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Bhuiyan Alias Jumuna Kumar Bhuiya Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Suresh Ravidas Ram Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamuna Kumar Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Kumar Bhuiya Vs the State of Jhakhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Kamal Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand

Shahid Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Taslim Khan And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamuna Kumar Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Bhuiyan Alias Jumuna Kumar Bhuiya Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Suresh Ravidas  Ram Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamuna Kumar Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Kumar Bhuiya Vs the State of Jhakhand

Suresh Ravidas Ram Vs State of Jharkhand