Allowed

Chaturanand Tripathi v. the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary Principal Secretary Department of Forest

Jharkhand HC4 Jan 2023WPC/1375/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions challenging departmental punishments imposed on a Forest Range Officer. The court held that charges were proved without any evidence, violating natural justice. Consequently, both the punishment order and the consequential order withholding salary during suspension were set aside.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned orders of punishment and suspension; writ petitions allowed.

Chaturanand Tripathi Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1375 of 2018

¶2

----

¶3

Chaturanand Tripathi, S/o Late Surya Gobind Tripathi, R/o Mohalla-L.N. Mishra Colony, Itki Road, P.O-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra), Town and Dist.-Ranchi … Petitioner

¶4

-versus-

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, having office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O & P.S.-Doranda, Town, Ranchi 2. Joint Secretary to Government, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, having office at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 3. The Conservator of Forest, wildlife Circle Ranchi, having office at Van Bhawan, Ranchi … Respondents

… Respondents

----

WITH

W.P.(S) No. 2836 of 2021

¶10

----

¶11

Chaturanand Tripathi, S/o Late Surya Gobind Tripathi, R/o Mohalla-L.N. Mishra Colony, Itki Road, P.O-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar (Pandra), Town and Dist.-Ranchi … Petitioner

¶12

-versus-

¶13

1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, having office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O & P.S.-Doranda, Town, Ranchi

¶14

Joint Secretary to Government, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, having office at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 3. Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, having office at Nepal House, Ranchi

¶15

The Conservator of Forest, wildlife Circle Ranchi, having office at Van Bhawan, Ranchi … Respondents

¶16

… Respondents

¶17

----

¶18

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶19

----

¶20

For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C-VI Mr . Piyush Anand, AC to S.C.-VI

¶21

----

¶22

09/ 04.01.2023 W.P.(S) No.1375 of 2018

¶23

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for

¶24

the respondents.

¶25

2. A very short point falls for consideration in this writ petition.

¶26

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that without there being any evidence, oral or documentary, this petitioner has been punished.

¶27

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State submits that only Charge Nos.3 and 5 stand proved, for which a minor punishment of ‘Censor’ has been imposed, which the Court may not interfere.

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

5. Petitioner is the Forest Range Officer. A chargesheet was issued against the petitioner. Five charges were levelled against the petitioner. The Charges are in Hindi and their translated versions are as follows:-

¶30

(1) Extortion of money, by misusing the post of Forest Range Officer, Ranchi Forest Plantation Area, Bero, in course of discharging his official duties.

¶31

(2) Not obeying the Rules 3(I)(II)(III) of Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules 1976;

¶32

(3) Dereliction in discharge of duty and hiding facts from senior officers.

¶33

(4) Dishonest conduct; and

¶34

(5) Ignoring the duties prescribed for government service.

¶35

6. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report with a finding that charge No.3 and charge No.5 are proved.

¶36

7. The allegation against the petitioner is that a vehicle bearing registration No. BR 21G 9051 was transporting illegally fell logs and the petitioner on check did not apprehend the vehicle, rather allowed the vehicle to pass. Further allegation is that he never informed the aforesaid incident to higher officers nor had taken any corrective measures.

¶37

8. So far as charge of taking bribe is concerned, petitioner was not proceeded against since a criminal case was initiated against him, which, ultimately, ended in acquittal. Charges Nos.3 and 5 stood proved, thus, the petitioner was punished with a minor punishment of ‘Censor’.

¶38

9. I have gone through the enquiry report. The Enquiry Officer, after completion of enquiry, found that charges Nos.3 and 5 stand proved, but, in the entire enquiry report, I find that only on the basis of allegation levelled against the petitioner, charges were held to be proved. Not a single witness was examined during the enquiry proceeding nor there is any document to suggest that the petitioner was not diligent in performing his duty. To prove charges Nos.3 and 5, there should have been some evidence, but, none came forward to support the allegation.

¶39

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, at paragraph 23 thereof, has held as follows: -

¶40

23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also

¶41

the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the

¶42

-: 3 :-

¶43

orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.

¶44

11. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was the duty of the respondents to produce evidence to prove the aforesaid charge. In absence of any evidence, merely, on the basis of the allegations made in the chargesheet, petitioner should not have been punished. Further, as admitted, the petitioner was not even chargesheeted for the act of accepting bribe and it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case where the charge was of accepting bribe.

¶45

12. Considering the aforesaid findings, in absence of evidence, the charges Nos.3 and 5 could not have been held to be proved. Thus, the impugned order vide notification contained in Memo No.Va.Chhe.Padha.(Aa.)81/2001-4330 dated 17.10.2017 is hereby set aside.

¶46

13. This writ petition stands allowed. W.P.(S) No.2836 of 2021

¶47

14. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order vide notification contained in Memo No.3360 dated 08.08.2018 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, State of Jharkhand, whereby, after concluding the Departmental Proceeding, it was held that the petitioner will only be entitled to receive the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension from 02.01.2002 to 18.07.2006.

¶48

15. The punishment awarded in Departmental Proceeding was challenged in W.P.(S) No. 1375 of 2018. This Court vide final order passed in

¶49

-: 4 :-

¶50

the said writ petition has allowed the same and has set aside the order of punishment.

¶51

16. Since the order of punishment in the departmental proceeding has been quashed, the consequential order of withholding his full salary for the period of suspension, which is under challenge in this writ petition, also needs to be set aside. The order vide notification contained in Memo No.3360 dated 08.08.2018 is hereby set aside.

¶52

17. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶53

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶54

Kumar/S.K./Cp-02

Chaturanand Tripathi v. the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary Principal Secretary Department of Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaturanand Tripathi v. the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary Principal Secretary Department of Forest

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

Jung Bahadur Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ruplal Shaw Vs the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pushpa Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Deshraj Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand