Allowed

Chitranjan Sharma v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC11 Jul 2019WPC/449/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of penalty orders for election duty negligence. The Court held the appellate authority must hear the employee when deviating from the report and the parent department lacked jurisdiction to punish an employee deputed from another department.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the punishment order dated 15.09.2009 and the appellate order dated 06.12.2010. Directing petitioner's return to parent department for consequential benefits.

Chitranjan Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 449 OF 2010

¶3

-----

¶4

Chitranjan Sharma, Son of late Sadhu Sharan Sharma residing at Flat No. 102, Gauri Tower, Lalpur, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, Town and District, Ranchi ... Petitioner Vs.

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

2.The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.s. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3.The Secretary/Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4.The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. & P.S & DistrictGiridih. ... Respondents

¶7

-----

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anuj Burman, A.C. to G.A.V

¶10

-----

¶11

Order No. 08 : Dated 11^th July, 2019

¶12

Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anuj Burman, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the punishment order dated 15.09.2009 and the appellate order dated 06.12.2010.

¶14

The petitioner is an employee of the Government of Jharkhand and he was working under the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand and subsequently he was posted as Executive Engineer, Special Division, Giridih and subsequently, thereafter, he was deputed in the Rural Development Department. During the period of posting the petitioner was charged of negligence of his duty in election. The petitioner took flimsy plea of not being well with a view to neglect his election duty and that the petitioner violated the election order. On the basis of this charge, the enquiry was conducted and departmental proceeding was imitated against the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged his order of suspension by filing W.P.(S) No. 2011 of 2009 which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court on 27.05.2009 with a direction to complete the enquiry within a period of 15 days

¶15

after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this petitioner and the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet being heard to this petitioner. Pursuant to that enquiry proceeded and the enquiry report has been submitted by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has stated that the petitioner is aged person and he has taken note that due to some accident he has not went on the election duty. The enquiry officer has further opined that it was expected that if the person met with an accident will provide the information to the concerned authority so that appropriate arrangement may take place, but the petitioner not informed and the enquiry officer further said that it was not expected from an experienced person like this petitioner, and he suggested for the punishment of censor of the petitioner.

¶16

Mr. Tiwary further submits that inspite of the request of the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority has not followed it and differed from the enquiry report of the petitioner and that is why it was incumbent on the appellate authority that opportunity of hearing needs to be provided to the petitioner. This has not happened in this case. He further submits that he was on deputation that is why the Deputy Commissioner is not the competent authority to pass the impugned order and on this ground the punishment order is fit to be rejected. He further submits that during pendency of this writ petition the appellate authority has added one part in the punishment saying that the petitioner will not be entitled for other benefits other than the subsistence allowance during the suspension period.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the enquiry the charges against the petitioner has been proved and taking into account the punishment order has been passed.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the enquiry report is there and the disciplinary authority was being deferred from the finding in the enquiry and as such it was incumbent upon the authority to hear the petitioner and give the reason of differences and thereafter to

¶19

pass the punishment order. The disciplinary authority has also not taken into account the age of this petitioner was 59 years at that time and met with an accident and that is why he was not able to report on election duty. The parent department of the petitioner is Water Resources Department whereas, the punishment order has been passed by the Rural Development Department and as such, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

¶20

As a cumulative effect of all the facts, this Court finds that the impugned orders are not sustained in the eyes of law, accordingly, the impugned orders dated 15.09.2009 and 06.12.2010 are quashed. The petitioner has already retired in the year, 2010 and he will be entitled to all consequential benefits.

¶21

Accordingly, this writ petition disposed of.

¶22

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶23

Amardeep/-

Chitranjan Sharma v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitranjan Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dinesh Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sobha Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand and Other

Ram Jas Singh Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

Man Mohan Jha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Abdul Hakim Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.