RANCHI, India, Feb. 23 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 22:
1. Heard the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the appellate order as contained in Memo No. 1287 dated 13.8.2013 (Annexure-6) passed by respondent No. 2and the order of punishment as contained in Memo No. 445 dated 3.3.2013 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner has been imposed a punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect, which is equivalent to three black marks.
3. The petitioner was appointed on 23.6.1981 on the post of constable in the undivided State of Bihar in Bihar Military Police and he was promoted on the post of Hawaldar in November, 1996. He was again promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector in December 2004 and in the year 2014, he was promoted to the post of Subedar. On 27.7.2011, vide memo No. 2044, respondent No. 4 issued a chargesheet against the petitioner on the allegation of receiving 15% Training Allowance during the period from 5.7.2009 to 7.8.2009, 19.11.2009 to 9.12.2009 and 2.2.2010 to 26.2.2010. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegation relying upon the Circular as contained in Memo No. 10251 dated 26.8.1958, whereby the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar requested not to entertain the allegation based upon anonymous letter. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report observing that the petitioner was not entitled to training allowance, but he received the same. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 imposed a punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect, equivalent to three black marks. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the respondent No. 3 vide impugned order as contained in Memo No. 1287 dated 13.8.2013.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the impugned order are unjust, improper and against the principle of natural justice. He submits that no documents were supplied to the petitioner before imposing the punishment. He also submits that any anonymous petition should not have been the basis of the inquiry and the enquiry report is thus vitiated due to noncompliance of required rules. He lastly submits that the punishment is too harsh.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the Disciplinary Authority issued letter vide Memo No. 125 dated 27.6.2011 asked for an explanation regarding receiving 15% training allowance during the training period and on the request of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority supplied relevant documents as per his application and again issued letter vide Memo No. 148 dated 12.7.2011 asking explanation regarding receiving 15% training allowance during the training period. Thereafter a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Departmental Proceeding No. 4 of 2011. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer, who was appointed, submitted a report, finding the charges proved against the petitioner. He also submits that the Commandant after receiving the enquiry report and considering the material on record as well as the enquiry report, issued the second show cause to the petitioner vide memo No. 203 dated 2.2.2013. Thereafter, the punishment order was passed, which was confirmed in appeal also, thus the impugned orders cannot be quashed and set aside. He lastly submits that there is no procedural illegality or irregularity in the entire process.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfN1m%2BXbsTlw833fa2U5vCYXNYE5AsRIOpZYIrspeTyga&caseno=WPC/1204/2022&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010090082022&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
