Allowed

Ratnesh Kumar Chaturvedi v. Co. Operative

Jharkhand HC10 Jul 2024WPC/6591/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order cancelling the petitioner's second allowance charge allowance and directing recovery, holding that such benefits granted before the initiation of disciplinary proceedings could not be taken away merely because a charge-sheet was subsequently issued during the pendency of the case.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned memo no. 2227 dated 01.08.2012 cancelling the second ACP and directing recovery of the amount.

Ratnesh Kumar Chaturvedi Vs Co. Operative — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6591 of 2012

¶2

------

¶3

Ratnesh Kumar Chaturvedi … … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus -

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Secretary, Cooperative Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Durwa, Ranchi

¶7

Under Secretary, Cooperative Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi ... … Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Utkarsh Krishna, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III ------

¶12

06/10.07.2024

¶13

Heard the parties

¶14

Petitioner, Ratnesh Kumar Chaturvedi has filed this writ petition for quashing of office order dated 01.08.2012 contained in Memo no. 2227 (Annexure-6) whereby and wherein the second ACP granted to the petitioner with effect from 11.08.2002 was cancelled and also passed the order for recovery of the amount which was already paid to him against the grant of second ACP.

¶15

Petitioner was appointed on 11.08.1978 after successfully passing the 25^th Joint Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission in Cooperative Department. His service was confirmed on 01.08.1988 and first ACP was granted to the petitioner from that date. Subsequently, after completion of the requisite period for grant of second ACP, petitioner was granted second ACP with effect from 11.08.2012. During the period between 1986 to November 1990, petitioner was posted as Managing Director of Ranchi-Khunti Central Cooperative Bank. In the year 1996, the department lodged an F.I.R against the employees of the Ranchi-Khunti Central Cooperative Bank for misappropriation of fund Rs. 7,50,115.59/- mainly against the Development officer namely Lal Ravindra Nath Shahdeo and his relatives. Petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. Subsequently, on the prayer of Investigating Officer petitioner was made accused in the year 2004.

¶16

It appears that charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner in that case in the year 2009 and other submission of the charge-sheet, the

¶17

impugned memo was issued cancelling second ACP with further direction to realize the amount paid to him against the grant of second ACP. This memo order was issued on 01.08.2012.

¶18

Mr. Utkarsh Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that at that time when the petitioner was given the benefit of second financial upgradation, no criminal case was pending against the petitioner. It was submitted that chargesheet was submitted in this case in the year 2009. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 109, Union of India & Ors. versus K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “(1) Consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official.”

¶19

Reliance has also been placed in the decision passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Duli Chand Gurjar versus The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5194 of 2012 wherein the learned Single Judge while placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Uma Shanker Kiradu versus State and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 926 of 2011) has held that:- “in no uncertain terms that the Departmental Promotion Committee can only be taken into consideration the material existing and available up to the last date of the vacancy year. Any adverse material that came into notice subsequently after the said date when the said vacancy arose cannot be taken into consideration while considering the person for promotion against the vacancy of the said year.”

¶20

The learned Judge further went on to hold that applying the analogy in the facts of the present case, the petitioner became eligible for grant of the second Financial Upgradation.

¶21

No Charge-sheet was issued against him on that date. The chargesheet was issued subsequently. As per the aforesaid judgments, disciplinary proceedings are treated to commence after the issuance of charge-sheet.

¶22

Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents has drawn attention towards Annexure-2, page no. 31 of this writ petition, wherein while granting ACP to the petitioner and other vide memo no. 1054 dated 27.06.2007 (Annexure-I, page-24), it was made clear that if any adverse

¶23

report comes to light then the Financial Upgradation shall be withdrawn and the amount paid against this Financial Upgradation shall be realized.

¶24

It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that on the date when second Financial Upgradation was allowed, no departmental proceeding was pending against him, no criminal case was also filed against him. Though, while granting Financial Upgradation to the petitioner, it was made clear that if any adverse report comes to light then this second Financial Upgradation will be withdrawn however this condition is contrary to the settled principle of law. Second Financial Upgradation so granted to the petitioner cannot be withdrawn as neither any proceeding was pending against him nor any charge-sheet was filed against him in the criminal case.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid facts, impugned memo no. 2227 dated

¶26

01.08.2012 is quashed.

¶27

This writ petition is allowed.

¶28

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

¶29

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶30

Rahul/-