Allowed¶21

Jai Narayan Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Sept 2024WPC/4120/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gratuity deduction quashed; departmental proceeding; Enquiry Report exonerating employee of misdemeanour, misconduct and negligence; monetary loss to State from work advance; Forester, Forest Department Dumka; World Food Programme (Tasar/Tesar); Office Order No. 13 dated 28.06.2019; Rs. 9,57,832.65; retirement 2016; memo of charge 16.03.2016; writ allowed by Justice Ambuj Nath on 02.09.2024.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Office Order No. 13 dated 28.06.2019 (Annexure-10) passed by Respondent No. 2, thereby setting aside the decision to deduct Rs. 9,57,832.65 from the petitioner's gratuity. ¶21

Jai Narayan Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 4120 of 2021

¶2

Jai Narayan Bhagat , son of Late Sheetal Bhagat, resident of Mohalla Ram Krishna Ashram Road, Dudhani, P.O & P.S Dumka, District-Dumka

¶3

----Petitioner (s) Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Chief Conservator-cum-Chief Coordinator, World Food Programme, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Van Bhawan, Doranda, P.O and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶6

The Additional Chief Conservator-cum-Chief Coordinator, World Food Programme, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Van Bhawan, Doranda, P.O and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶7

The Divisional Forest Officer, World Food Programme (Tesar), Division, Dumka, P.O and P.S. and District Dumka

¶8

The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi P.O and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi ----Respondent (s)

¶9

¶10

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner (s): Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.C to S.C(L&C)-III For the Resp. No. 5: Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate

¶13

¶14

11/ 02.09.2024 Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the Office Order No. 13 dated 28.06.2019 (Annexure-10), passed by the Respondent No. 2- Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Chief Coordinator, World Food Programme, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and wherein, the Respondent No. 2 has taken a decision to deduct Rs. 9,57,832.65 from the gratuity amount of the petitioner.

¶15

In the year 2014-15, petitioner was working as a Forester under the Forest Department, Dumka. It is further case of the petitioner that the Forest Area Officer, World Food Programme (Tasar), Area, Dumka had issued a work order addressed to the petitioner by letter no. 02 dated 05.01.2015, wherein he was directed to execute the work (Path Tat-Sah-Shashri Vaniki Yojna Antargat) from Aashram More to Rani Ghaghar and from Rani Ghaghar to Chutona. Plantation was to be undertaken under the aforesaid scheme and saplings were to be cordoned by Gambians. During the course of inspection, it was found that adequate number of Gambians which were to be placed around the saplings were not there and Gambians were also not painted as per the specification. The petitioner retired in the year 2016.

¶16

Departmental proceeding was initiated and memo of charge was served upon the petitioner on 16.03.2016. After the Departmental Proceeding, the Enquiry Officer submitted Enquiry Report, from perusal of which, it appears

¶17

¶18

that the Enquiry Officer has not found the petitioner guilty of any misdemeanour, nor he was found guilty of any misconduct. However, in the Enquiry Report, it has been stated that the petitioner was given advance for carrying out the work under the aforesaid scheme and as such, monetary loss was caused to the State.

¶19

Specific query was made to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent State. When confronted that in the Enquiry Report, he has not been found guilty of dereliction of duty, nor he was found guilty of any indiscipline, then how could the petitioner be held guilty for causing loss to the State. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent State only submitted that the petitioner was found guilty for causing loss to the State Exchequer.

¶20

Considering the specific findings given in the Enquiry Report that the petitioner was not guilty of any misdemeanour or negligence in carrying out the work order, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the loss caused to the State and therefore, the Respondent cannot deduct the amount of Rs. 9,57,832.65 from the gratuity amount of the petitioner.

¶21

Accordingly, Office Order No. 13 dated 28.06.2019 (Annexure-10), passed by the Respondent No. 2- Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Chief Coordinator, World Food Programme, Jharkhand, Ranchi is hereby quashed. This writ application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶22

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶23

Ranjeet/ Uploaded

Jai Narayan Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Narayan Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guddu Rajwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ibrar Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishwanath Yadav Alias Sadhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabhu Prasad Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Primary Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi

Manoj Kumar Dey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Drinking Water and Sanitation Deptt

Kamal Herenz Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ld through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director