The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs Harinandan Rajak

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L. P. A. No. 457 of 2016

¶3

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶6

The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi … … Appellants Versus … …

¶7

Harinandan Rajak Respondent ---

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶9

¶10

For the Appellant : None For the Respondents : M/s. Manoj Tandon, Neha Bhardwaj & Adamya Kerketta, Advocate

¶11

¶12

6/04.04.2024 I. A. No. 9304 of 2017:

¶13

None appears on behalf of the appellant, but Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent is present.

¶14

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 144 days in filing this appeal.

¶15

Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 144 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

¶16

I. A. No. 9304 of 2017 stands disposed of.

¶17

L. P. A. No. 457 of 2016:

¶18

This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5357 of 2008, in which the impugned show cause notice dated 29.09.2008 and second show-cause notice dated 01.10.2008 have been quashed and set aside.

¶19

It has been submitted by Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner – respondent that in the inquiry report, the writ petitioner had been absolved from the charges levelled against him, but in spite of the said fact, an order of punishment had been passed against the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S)

¶20

-2-

¶21

No. 4310 of 2003 which was disposed of on 31.03.2008 by quashing the impugned order dated 11.08.2003 with a liberty to the department to proceed further in accordance with law. It has been submitted that after six months of the order of quashment of the punishment order, the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand has issued a second show-cause notice to the writ – petitioner in which the reason for differing with the inquiry report has not been enumerated and in fact the proposed punishment has also been mentioned in the second showcause notice, which is contrary to the provisions of the service rules. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered the entire aspect of the matter while allowing the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

Briefly stated the facts reveal that the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in the Rural Engineering Organisation, Church Block, Hazaribagh and during his service tenure, he was issued a memorandum of charge on the basis of which a departmental proceeding was initiated. The departmental inquiry had come to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the writ – petitioner were not proved. However, in the order dated 11.08.2003, multiple punishments were awarded by the departmental authority upon the writ petitioner – respondent which was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(S) No. 4310 of 2003. The said writ application was disposed of on 31.03.2008 and the order of punishment was quashed with a liberty given to the concerned respondent to proceed in accordance with law, if they so desired. It appears that after almost 6 months from the date the order was passed in W.P.(S) No. 4310 of 2003, a second show-cause notice has been issued to the writ petitioner in which the proposed punishment was also prescribed and which was challenged by the writ – petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5357 of 2008 which was ultimately quashed vide order dated 05.04.2016 and which is the order impugned to the present appeal.

¶23

On the perusal of the second show-cause notice dated 01.10.2008, there does not appear to be any reason given for differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. There is no obstacle for the departmental authority to differ with the findings of the inquiry report, but the reasons

¶24

-3-

¶25

should be enumerated in the second show-cause notice itself and only after the reply is given by the delinquent employee, then the punishment could be imposed, but in the present case, the second show-cause prescribing the proposed punishment has been issued and in such context, reference may be made to the relevant part of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra” reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 .

¶26

“19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.”

¶27

The learned Single Judge has appropriately considered the entire facets of the case while allowing the writ petition and quashing the second show-cause notice dated 01.10.2008 as well as the earlier showcause notice dated 29.09.2008. We on a perusal of the impugned order dated 05.04.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5357 of 2008 do not find any reasons to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and consequently this appeal is dismissed.

¶28

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶29

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶30

R Shekhar Cp 2

The State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Harinandan Rajak

Case brief

What is this about?

The State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Harinandan Rajak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pooja Kumari Alias Jaiswal Vs Amit Kumar

Sunil Kumar Choudhry Vs Pushpalate Devi

Amit Kumar Vs Pooja Kumari Alias Jaiswal

Dulali Saha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Principal Secretary Department of Rural Development

Naquee Ali Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary Food Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department

Bediya Vikash Parishad through Its Chairman Shankar Bediya Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary