Allowed

Satish Kumar Sandwar v. Chairman Cum Managing Director Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.

Jharkhand HC1 Mar 2021WPC/2258/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of a departmental order imposing punishment (censure and withholding of increments) on a retired government employee. The court held that since a similarly situated Joint Secretary was exonerated on identical charges under the principle of parity, the petitioner was unfairly treated as a scapegoat.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.12.2015 imposing punishment of withholding two increments and censure is quashed.

Satish Kumar Sandwar Vs Chairman Cum… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

1 [ W.P.(S) No. 2258 of 2018 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 2258 of 2018

¶4

----

¶5

Satish Kumar Sandwar, aged about 61 years, son of late Raj Kishore Prasad Sinha, resident of Flat No.101, 1^st Floor, Raj Mansion Apartment, Block-B, Vikas Nagar, Road No.4, Singh More, Latma More, PO Hatia, PS Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi ….. Petitioner

¶6

-- Versus --

¶7

1.Chairman Cum Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶8

2.General Manager (Personnel and General Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶9

3.Deputy General Manager (HR), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶10

…... Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate For Resp.-JUVNL :- Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate

¶14

¶15

/01.03.2021 Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent JUVNL.

¶16

¶17

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶18

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the respondent no.3 by which the punishment has been imposed against the petitioner pursuant to the departmental proceeding and further direction with regard to withholding

¶19

2 [ W.P.(S) No. 2258 of 2018 ]

¶20

of promotional right for one year and punishment of censure. The prayer for quashing the appellate order dated 11.05.2017 is also made.

¶21

The petitioner was appointed by the then Bihar State Electricity Board as a L.D.Assistant and has subsequently been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary and he was posted at Transmission Zone-I at Ranchi. He retired from service on 31.01.2018. The petitioner was allocated the cadre of State of Jharkhand in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board after reorganization of the State of Bihar. The petitioner was working as Under Secretary cum Registrar in the Electric Supply Area, Jamshedpur and was served with memorandum of charge dated 14.06.2013 issued by the Joint Secretary. The charges with regard to some comments on the noting of the file which was meant for promotion. The charges was with regard to forwarding the proposal of junior officers ignoring the senior officers for the promotion. The petitioner joined in the year 2002 in Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi under cadre Division. The petitioner has received the outstanding ACR. The petitioner’s service has been confirmed by the respondent Board. Pursuant to that charge, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, the charge has been approved. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has been issued second show case. The petitioner filed the reply to the second show cause and thereafter the impugned order has been passed whereby the punishment of withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect has been passed against the petitioner.

¶22

Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made scape goat. He submits that two persons including the Joint Secretary, namely Mr. Chandra Mohan Sharma were charge sheeted with the same allegation. In the

¶23

3 [ W.P.(S) No. 2258 of 2018 ]

¶24

departmental proceeding the charge against the Joint Secretary was also found proved and the second show cause has been issued and after considering the second show cause, the Joint Secretary has been exonerated whereas the petitioner has been punished for the same charge. He submits that the petitioner has only made the note and the petitioner is not the final authority to grant promotion. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be allowed on the ground of parity. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seeds Growers’ Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah” ,(2006) 6 SCC 548.

¶25

Per contra, Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent JUVNL submits that the petitioner is the main person and due to his noting the promotion was provided and that is why the petitioner has been punished. He submits that in the departmental proceeding the case of the petitioner has been proved. He submits that the petitioner has given the noting to allow promotion to the degree holder Junior Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer. He submits that there is no question of parity with respect to the petitioner as well as the Joint Secretary. He submits that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. He further submits that the dealing assistant has given the noting without legal opinion which could be obtained in the matter and the petitioner has ignored the same.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court has ventured to go through the materials on record. It is admitted fact that the petitioner as well as the Joint Secretary namely Chandra Mohan Sharma were charge sheeted for the same charge. The charge against the said Chandra Mohan Sharma was also proved in the

¶27

4 [ W.P.(S) No. 2258 of 2018 ]

¶28

departmental proceeding and after the second show cause, the said Chandra Mohan Sharma was exonerated from the charges whereas the petitioner has been punished with such punishment as indicated above. It is not the petitioner who has allowed the promotion. Even assuming that due to the noting of the petitioner anything has happened, the entire responsibility cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. The higher authorities have thereafter considered the case of the persons for such promotion and they have passed the order. The file also moved before the Joint Secretary-II who has also been charge sheeted for the same charges whereas he has been exonerated and the petitioner has been punished which suggests that the petitioner has been made scape goat. The identically situated person has been exonerated and on the ground of parity, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 18.12.2015 is quashed.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶31

SI/,

Satish Kumar Sandwar v. Chairman Cum Managing Director Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Sandwar v. Chairman Cum Managing Director Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.

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

Golak Mandal Vs the Jh Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Violet Lakra Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ashraf Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Deptt

Mohit Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Fulena Devi Vs Home Department

Savita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Child Welfare Social Development Department