Allowed

Ranjan Kishore Hansda v. Human Resources Department

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2023WPC/1289/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired teacher, challenged an order forfeiting one increment due to alleged unauthorized absence. The Court quashed the order for lack of reasons and intent to punish, noting the petitioner had superannuated and no further proceedings were possible.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order forfeiting one increment dated 12.11.2014 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits.

Ranjan Kishore Hansda Vs Human Resources… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1289 of 2017

¶2

Ranjan Kishore Hansda... ….Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.

¶7

The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad.

¶8

The Block Education Extension Officer, Baliapur, Dhanbad.

¶9

...Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶11

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Ms. Shivani Kapoor, AC to SC-II

¶12

07/17.01.2023: The petitioner was a teacher in upgraded Middle School, Nipaniya, Baliapur. As he was found absent on 17.10.2014, the respondents treated his absence to be unauthorized, thus, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice. The petitioner had given detailed reply stating therein that he has already sent an application for grant of leave to the Principal, Middle School, Raghunathpur. As per para 11 of the counter affidavit, the Principal, Middle School, Raghunathpur was the competent authority to grant leave to the petitioner. The respondent has taken a plea that as the leave was not granted, the reply to the show cause of the petitioner was rejected and minor punishment of forfeiture of one increment with non-cumulative effect was passed by the order impugned dated 12.11.2014 as contained in Memo No. 2777.

¶13

When I go through the impugned order, I find that in one line, the reply of the petitioner was rejected holding that the defence, which the petitioner has taken, is unsatisfactory. When a reply to a show cause notice is sought for, the authorities have to consider the reply and if the reply is rejected, the reasons for rejecting the same must be incorporated in the order itself. The respondent in one line cannot hold that the reply is unsatisfactory. Why the same is unsatisfactory, must be dealt with by the respondents and in absence of such findings, the impugned order cannot be said to be a reasoned order and the same cannot qualify the test of reasonableness.

¶14

Further, from the notice to show cause, which is at Annexure-1, I find that no-where, it has been mentioned that the respondents had taken a decision to punish the petitioner. The notice to show cause was issued to explain as to why the petitioner remained absent. There is nothing to suggest that the respondent had intention to inflict any punishment upon the petitioner or to initiate a proceeding.

¶15

If the respondents intend to punish the petitioner they would have specified in the notice about their intention to punish the petitioner to which, the

¶16

¶17

petitioner had to reply. Without clearing their intention to punish the petitioner, the respondents in the impugned order have forfeited one increment of the petitioner by way of punishment. This procedure adopted by the respondents is also bad.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid findings, arrived at by this Court, the impugned order dated 12.11.2014 as contained in Memo No. 2777 is quashed and set aside .

¶19

Since the petitioner has already superannuated and there exists no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondents, the respondents cannot proceed any further against the petitioner. Thus, it would be useless to remand the matter to the respondents. The respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner consequent upon the quashment of the impugned order.

¶20

Accordingly, this petition stands allowed .

¶21

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶22

Anu/-CP2.

Ranjan Kishore Hansda v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Kishore Hansda v. Human Resources Department

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

Ashok Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Nisha Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Rural Development

Anant Kumar Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand