Allowed

Lalit Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC13 Mar 2019WPC/1884/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a departmental punishment order and the subsequent appellate confirmation because the Disciplinary Authority differed with the Inquiry Officer's findings without issuing a second show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The punishment order dated 29.09.2010 and the appellate order dated 10.03.2011 were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to issue a second show cause notice.

Lalit Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 1884 of 2018

¶3

Lalit Oraon..…................

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary

¶7

The Director General of Police, Jharkhand

¶8

The Deputy Inspector General of Police-cum Appellate Authority, South Chhotanagpur Region, Ranchi

¶9

The Superintendent of Police-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Gumla

¶10

The Deputy Superintendent of Police-cumEnquiry Officer, Gumla. ………… Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok anand, Advocate For the Respondents : AC to A.G.

¶13

7/13.03.2019 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶14

The petitioner, in this writ application, has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 2847 dated 29.09.2010, by which the Disciplinary Authority punished the petitioner after holding him guilty and imposed a punishment of two black marks in addition to withholding of his salary on the basis of no work no pay. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order passed by the Appellate Authority, by which his appeal has been dismissed and punishment order has been confirmed.

¶15

It is not necessary to state the facts of this case in detail as because on the short point of law and on admitted fact, this case is being disposed of.

¶16

The petitioner was a Constable in police department and was posted at Gumla. He was served with a departmental charge sheet dated 04.04.2010, alleging misconduct. A departmental inquiry was held. In the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the charges not to be proved against this petitioner. After submission of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority punished the petitioner, disagreeing with the findings given in the inquiry report. The punishment order was challenged in the departmental appeal, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

¶17

The petitioner raises a short point of law in this case. He submits that it is well within the jurisdiction and domain of the Disciplinary Authority to differ with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, but if the disciplinary Authority wants to punish the delinquent, a second show cause notice has to be served and the reasons as to why he is differing with the findings of the report of the Inquiry Officer have to be mentioned in the show cause notice. He further submits that this process has not

¶18

-2-

¶19

been followed before passing the impugned order. He further submits that no second show cause notice was issued and only on this ground, the impugned order can be set aside.

¶20

This Court on the earlier occasion, i.e. 25.02.2019, directed the respondents to file a short affidavit stating as to whether the second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner or not. In compliance of the said order, the respondents have filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 08.03.2019. Para-4 of the said supplementary counter affidavit needs to be quoted herein below:-

¶21

“4 . That it is most humbly stated and submitted that as per the direction dated 25.02.2019 by this Hon’ble Court the respondent no. 4, Superintendent of Police, Gumla perused the record of Departmental proceeding no. 4/2000 and found that the then disciplinary authority deferred from the inquiry officer’s report and passed the punishment order. But no second show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner . ”

¶22

From perusal of the said supplementary counter affidavit especially para-4, it is quite clear that the respondents have not issued the second show cause notice to the petitioner, but punished him after differing with the findings incorporated in inquiry report. This procedure which the respondents have adopted is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner ought to have been issued a second show cause notice indicating the ground of disagreement, before punishing him. Thus, the punishment order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as it violates the principles of natural justice. Since the punishment cannot be sustained, the appellate order also needs to be set aside.

¶23

Thus, I hereby set aside the order of punishment dated 29.09.2010, passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate order dated 10.03.2011, passed by the Appellate Authority.

¶24

The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority. If the Disciplinary Authority wants to proceed any further in the matter, he will issue second show cause notice giving reasons as to why he is differing with the inquiry report and will thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ application stands disposed of.

¶26

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶27

Mukund/-cp. 2

Lalit Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Vasumati Pradhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushila Devi Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Sunita Kumari Vs The Union Of India Represented Through Deputy Superintendent Central Industrial Security Force And

Dhanbir Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Department

Sanjiv Khawas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.