Allowed

Sita Ram Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Pr Secretary Agriculture Animal Husbandry Deptt

Jharkhand HC9 Jul 2024WPC/1074/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order denying full salary to a cooperative extension officer exonerated of departmental charges. The court held that rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 entitles a fully exonerated employee to full pay and allowances for the suspension period, quashed the impugned memo and directed payment of dues.

What did the court decide?

Memo dated 01.08.2016 quashed; respondents directed to pay full salary for suspension period and clear all dues within 8 weeks.

Sita Ram Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand through… — Cooperative Societies | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 1074 of 2019

¶3

------

¶4

Sita Ram Choudhary … … Petitioner

¶5

-Versus -

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative Department, Doranda, Ranchi

¶7

The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶8

The Deputy Registrar-cum-Enquiry Officer, Ranchi

¶9

... … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶12

For the Petitioner	------ : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate : Mr. Adamya Kerketta, Advocate
	: Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
	: Ms. Ankita, Advocate
For the Resp.-State	: Mr. Saurav Mahto, Ac to GP-I

06/09.07.2024

Heard the parties.

Petitioner, Sita Ram Choudhary has filed this writ petition for quashing of Memo No. 1872 dated 01.08.2016 (Annexure-12) issued by the respondent no. 2, The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi stating that the petitioner was not entitled for anything than what he has been paid as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension from 07.07.2000 to 03.12.2001 alongwith other interest.

¶17

Petitioner was appointed as Cooperative Extension Officer on 15.11.1995 in the unified State of Bihar. After the State of Bihar was bifurcated, the service of petitioner was allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand. It is alleged that during the life time of his first wife Sunita Devi, he re-married. On the representation of Sunita Devi, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was also suspended during the pendency of departmental proceeding. It appears that charge was framed against the petitioner under three heads including the allegation for marrying again in the life time of his first wife. Petitioner was not found guilty of any of the charge in the departmental proceeding and as such he was exonerated. The respondent no. 2, The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi by the impugned order directed that the petitioner after is exoneration from the charges will not be entitled for

¶18

anything other than were paid to him as subsistence allowance.

¶19

Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention towards provision of rule 97(2) Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 which reads as;

¶20

“ Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule(1), is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled has he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.”

¶21

Mr. Saurav Mahto, learned AC to GP-I appearing on behalf of the respondents stated that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi and the same was also dismissed. As such, petitioner is not entitled to any benefits other than what he has been paid as subsistence allowance during the period of 07.07.2000 to 03.12.2001.

¶22

In view of the specific provision under rule 97(2) of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 that the person who has been fully exonerated from charge shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled has he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be. This Court is of the opinion that the respondents are liable to pay full salary to the petitioner during his period of suspension.

¶23

Memo No. 1872, dated 01.08.2016 (Annexure-12) issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi is quashed. Respondents are directed to clear all the dues of the petitioner within 8 weeks.

¶24

This writ petition is allowed.

¶25

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶26

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶27

Rahul/-

Sita Ram Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Pr Secretary Agriculture Animal Husbandry Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Pr Secretary Agriculture Animal Husbandry Deptt

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

Dr Pradeep Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Jyotishi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Department of Home

Usha Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary School Education and Literacy Department

Awadhesh Kumar Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary School Education and Literacy Department