Jharkhand High Court
Bikesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 11 August, 2016
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1771 of 2015
-------
Bikash Kumar, Son of Sri Surendra Singh, Resident of Jai Prakash
Nagar, Gali No. 04, Post Office and Police Station-Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, At P.O +P.S. & District
-Dhanbad.
3.The Assistant Director, Social Security Cell, Dhanbad Collectorate,
Dhanbad, At P.O + P.S. & District-Dhanbad.
.... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shadab, J.C to G.P.I
------
07/ Dated: 11th August, 2016
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing memo dated 07.12.2013, whereby petitioner has been removed from services and his name has been black-listed so that he may not be able to get the employment in any other department.
2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, is that petitioner was appointed as daily wages computer operator vide memo dated 29.10.2011 at Social Security Cell, Dhanbad Collectorate and since then he was performing his duties to the utmost satisfaction to his superior authorities. It has been submitted that under 'Indira Gandhi National Old Age Revision' and 'Widow Pension Scheme'; the Social Security Cell, Dhanbad Collectorate was assigned with the work of processing the applications and documents of the beneficiaries of old age pension and widow pension and in that process, the petitioner was assigned with the work to make data entry of names of the beneficiaries of pension holders. It has further been submitted that basing on the allegation that the petitioner 2 entered the names of 19 incompetent persons of Rampur Kopali East Tundi Block in the computer for on-line payment of pension, a show cause explanation contained in memo dated 27.11.2013 was served upon the petitioner, to which, the petitioner replied vide explanation dated 28.11.2013 stating that the alleged entries were never sent by the petitioner directly rather those lists were being compared and verified by the officials of the Social Security Cell, Dhanbad Collectorate, therefore, it is not correct to say that the payment was being done on the on-line entires. Being dissatisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the respondents-authorities imposed the punishment vide memo dated 07.12.2013, which is impugned in this writ application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not the petitioner where the applicants were to submit their application rather the petitioner was only a part of that chain from where he enters the data checked and verified by the official of the Social Security Cell, Dhanbad Collectorate. The applicants submitted their application in the office of Block Development, which is being forwarded to the office of Assistant Director, Social Security Cell and after getting approval by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the same has to be sent back to the office of Assistant Director, Social Security Cell. Thereafter, the Assistant Director, Social Security Cell, sends the approval certificates to the office of Block Development Officer for its distribution to the applicants and after getting the approval certificates, the applicants give their details of Bank Account etc. to the office of Block Development Officer, from where it comes to the office of Assistant Director, Social Security Cell, where the entries were being made in the computer. It has further been submitted that every month a print out of a list of approved pensioners is taken out, 3 which is being verified by the officials of Social Security Cell and thereafter bill is being sent to treasury and finally to the Bank for payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in that process the list and bill passes through various officials, hence, the petitioner cannot be said to be responsible for giving/making wrong entry of 19 incompetent persons/beneficiaries. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing and has not been given the materials, on which, the enquiry committee came to the conclusion that relevant entries have been made by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that without any exhaustive enquiry and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner may not be put in the black list for getting future employment, which is violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages for Rs. 208.25 per day. During his service tenure, the Circle Officer, Tundi vide letter dated 22.11.2013 reported that petitioner is paying old age pension and widow pension in respect of 19 persons, who are not entitled under the Scheme, without any sanction of the competent authority. Thereafter, the matter was verified from the central register maintained for this purpose and it was found that names of such persons for grant of pension through on-line process is not available. Thus, it is admitted position that the petitioner has made entries without any valid grounds. Basing on these allegations, show cause explanation was sought from the petitioner, which on being found unsatisfactory, the impugned order of punishment has been passed, which in view of the 4 serious irregularities, misconduct and fraudulent act of illegal entry, is justified.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the relevant materials available on record, it appears that the allegation of paying pension to 19 persons/beneficiaries under 'Indira Gandhi National Old Age Revision' and 'Widow Pension Scheme' has been fully proved against the petitioner as the respondents-authorities have come to a definite finding that in the central register maintained for this purpose names of such persons for grant of pension through on-line process is not found, hence, impugned order of removal of services of the petitioner, does not warrant interference by this Court.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors Vs. T.J. Paul as reported in (1999) 4 SCC 759 has held that imposition of penalty other than the one provided in the relevant rules is impermissible. In the case at hand, besides imposing the punishment of removal from services, the petitioner has been awarded punishment of black-listing his name so that he could not get employment in any other department, which is impermissible in law. Hence, that part of impugned order by which the petitioner has been black-listed to get employment from other department is hereby quashed and set aside.
7. To this extent, the writ petition stands partly allowed.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-