RANCHI, India, Oct. 17 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 16:

1. Since identical issues are involved in both these writ applications, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In W.P.(S). No. 1546 of 2015, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 01.07.2014 and reminder dated 23.02.2015 (Annexures- 7 & 7/1 respectively), as the same is in violation of and in teeth of the judgment and the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also the verdict passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1248 of 2013.

Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents not to give effect the impugned order dated 01.07.2014 and reminder dated 23.02.2015, as it is clear-cut violation of the order passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, as the law is very well settled that the reason has to be assigned at first when differing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and the tentative reason has to be given to the delinquent to give his reply.

3. In W.P.(S). No. 214 of 2019, prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to make payment of gratuity and leave encashment which has not been paid to the petitioner till date.

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 03.05.2019 and 09.05.2019, by which order of recovery has been passed in violation of principles of substantial natural justice as well as Rule 43(b) and 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rule and also on the ground that the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding and without differing with the report of Inquiry Officer, the order of recovery has been issued.

The order of punishment has already been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 1546 of 2015, which is pending for adjudication.

4. Briefly stated, an FIR was lodged by Central Bureau of Investigation under various sections of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging therein that the petitioner being an Executive Engineer in the Road Construction Department entered into a criminal conspiracy with some construction Company and submitted bogus invoice showing procurement of bitumen for execution of contractual work which caused wrongful gain to the Contractor and wrongful loss to the Government.

5. From record it appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated and the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer vide its report dated 29.06.2012. As a matter fact, the petitioner earlier came before this Court challenging the order dated 06.10.2012, whereby a fresh Inquiry Officer was appointed with regard to the allegation as shown in letter dated 17.02.2012. This Court vide order dated 29.11.2013, passed in W.P.(S). No. 1248 of 2013, allowed the writ application and quashed the order dated 06.10.2012. For brevity relevant paragraphs of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1248 of 2013 is extracted herein below:

"10. I further find that the contention raised by the respondents in the counter-affidavit cannot be considered in the present proceeding. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others", reported in AIR 1978 SC 851, it is not open to the respondents to support the impugned order by supplementing reasons through counter-affidavit filed in the present proceeding.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62WgBaVz02IRwU24Z6RQa4%2Fxo8g9jNo4l%2FrrwP5LlXL2K6&caseno=WPC/214/2019&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010007612019&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.