Allowed

Arvind Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Feb 2021WPC/7654/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ranchi allowed a writ petition quashing a departmental punishment order and a subsequent appellate order for being non-speaking and procedurally flawed for major penalties, directed respondents to grant consequential benefits and pay dues.

What did the court decide?

Impugned punishment order dated 20.09.2011; appellate order dated 31.05.2018 quashed. Respondents directed to grant consequential benefits within four months and pay dues within six weeks.

Arvind Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 7654 of 2011

¶4

Arvind Kumar Sinha ..… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand though its Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶7

Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi.

¶8

Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. ..... Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I

¶12

¶13

15/Dated: 2^nd February, 2021

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

¶15

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order of punishment as contained in Memo No. 5768 dated 20.09.2011 issued by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-9), whereby three punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner i.e. withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect, withholding of regular promotion till pendency of Vigilance Case and withholding of salary for the period from the date of suspension till the date of punishment order.

¶16

The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure-14), whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been summarily rejected without assigning any reason.

¶17

¶18

3. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ application is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department and in due course he was also granted benefit of 1^st and 2^nd time-bound promotion. After bifurcation, he was posted as Junior Engineer in Rural Development Special Division, Lohardaga. While the petitioner was in service; on the basis of a complaint made by Verma Oraon, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi directed the concerned authority to verify and report and subsequently, a Vigilance Case being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 18 of 2008 was also registered on 27.09.2008. As a result, the petitioner was suspended under Rule 99 of the Jharkhand Service Code in view of his jail custody. However, when he was released on bail on 04.12.2009; he submitted his joining. However, vide an office order dated 17.03.2010; the government again suspended the petitioner under Rule 100 of the Jharkhand Service Code in contemplation of a departmental proceeding and a chargesheet was also issued to which the petitioner duly replied and finally a provisional punishment has been imposed vide order dated 20.09.2011.

¶19

4. Mr. Sahini, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on following grounds:-

¶20

(a) There is no provision of provisional punishment in

¶21

¶22

service jurisprudence;

¶23

(b) The nature of punishment is admittedly a major punishment; as such, the respondents were duty bound to issue second show cause notice and after receiving the reply, should have passed the order of punishment and in the instant case, no second show cause notice has been served to the petitioner before imposing the punishment;

¶24

(c) By going through the impugned orders it would transpire that no reason has been assigned either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority;

¶25

(d) When the petitioner has been acquitted in the Vigilance Case which was the basis of the charge sheet / departmental proceedings; his appeal should have been entertained.

¶26

5. Relying upon the aforesaid facts/contentions, learned counsel submits that both the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside as there is procedural irregularity; apart from the fact that the basis of charge was on a complaint petition and the petitioner has already been acquitted in the said criminal case.

¶27

6. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the punishment has been passed after due procedure and the petitioner was first

¶28

¶29

issued a charge-sheet and thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and finally the order of punishment has been passed. He further submits that though the reason given in the impugned order of punishment is not detailed, however, it cannot be said that it is a non-speaking order. However, Mr. Saboo could not defend the appellate order which has been communicated to the petitioner on 31.05.2018; which is completely non-speaking and non-reasoned order. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits; it clearly transpires by going through the impugned order of punishment that the disciplinary authority has treated this order as a provisional order. It further transpires from the nature of punishment that it is a major punishment and admittedly; no second show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner which is mandatory requirement of law. It further transpires by going through the impugned order of punishment that no independent mind has been applied by the disciplinary authority; rather the punishment has been imposed on the opinion of the Advocate General. Therefore, there won’t be any exoneration in treating this order as non-reasoned and non-speaking order. Further from the order impugned itself it clearly transpires that the promotion was with held up till decision of the criminal

¶30

¶31

case which was pending before the competent criminal court. As such, the moment the petitioner was acquitted and filed representation before the appellate authority; he was duty bound to take a decision by giving a speaking order, but from the appellate order it clearly transpires that it is completely non-speaking and non-reasoned order. Even otherwise, the basis of charge i.e. the complaint made by the one Verma Oraon, whereby Vigilance case was instituted and the petitioner was sent in custody and he was suspended and in connection with the said case itself the departmental proceeding was initiated; the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and the State has not challenged that decision; therefore, the very basis of charge does not subsist.

¶32

8. In view of the aforesaid findings the impugned order of punishment as contained in Memo No. 5768 dated 20.09.2011 and also the order in appeal as contained in order dated 31.05.2018 is quashed and set aside. It is pertinent to state that normally in these type of cases, the matter should be remitted back to the disciplinary authority to start a fresh proceeding from the stage of supply of show cause notice, however, since the petitioner has already retired on 30.09.2014; as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in remitting the case back to the disciplinary authority because of the obvious reason that

¶33

¶34

the cause of action is certainly beyond the period of four years and as per proviso to Rule 43 (b) of Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules; the same is not permissible.

¶35

9. As a result, the instant writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass a necessary order for extending the consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and pay the accumulated dues within a further period of six weeks.

¶36

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶37

Amardeep/

Arvind Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Sinha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mahendra Kuamr Rana Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Narayan Chandra Gorain Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Sarfuddin Ansari Vs Ms Bharat Cocking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Vincent Dhan Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.