Jharkhand High Court
Prasan Kumar Nayak And Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 10 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: [2005(4)JCR343(JHR)], 2006 LAB IC 476, 2006 (1) AIR JHAR R 118, (2006) 1 JLJR 348, (2005) 4 JCR 343 (JHA)
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.12.2002 issued by respondent No. 3 Managing Director, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Patna, Bihar whereby five increments of the petitioners have been withheld and also affecting their future increments. Petitioners are posted as Range Officer in the different districts in Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation. It appears that some questions were raised on the floor of the Assembly regarding non-observance of reservation policy in the matter of engagement of Munshi by the Range Officer for collection of tendu leaves during the year 1991-92. Petitioners were called upon to submit their explanation/show-cause regarding the non observance of reservation policy in the matter of engagement of Munshi for collection of tendu leaves during the year 1991-92. Petitioners submitted their explanation stating that no illegality was committed in making appointment of Munshi for collection of tendu leaves. After considering the explanation, impugned order of punishment withholding five increments and also affecting future increments has been passed.
2. In the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Managing Director, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi and Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Division, Ranchi, it is stated that Special Committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly relating to tendu leaves, visited the fields and observed that the Range Officers concerned had not followed the norms of appointing the Munshi in that year. The Committee recommended for stoppage of five increments of each of the concerned Range Officers (petitioners) vide letter dated 2.2.1995. In compliance of the aforesaid letter, respondent No. 3, asked explanation from the petitioners about the observations made by the Special Committee. After perusal of the explanation of the writ petitioners, respondent No. 3 ordered for the stoppage of five increments of the writ petitioners.
3. Admittedly, by the impugned order five increments of the petitioners have been withheld and the order will affect future increments also. The order withholding of five increments and also affecting their future increments have been passed only on the basis of recommendation made by the Committee constituted by the Assembly.
4. Paras 7, 8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is worth to be quoted here-in-below :
"7. That the Special Committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly relating to tendu leaves, visited the fields and observed that the Range Officers concerned had not followed the norms of appointing the Munshi in that year. The committee recommended for stop- page of Five increments of each of the concerned Range Officer (Petitioners) vide its letter No. 116, dated 2.2.1995.
8. That in compliance of letter No. 1159, dated 25.6.2001 of the Managing Director, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Patna (Respondent No. 3), Divisional Manager of Minor Forest Produce Project Ranchi Division vide his letter Nos. 899, dated 3.7.2001 and 941, dated 13.7.2001, (Annexures-1 and l/1, of the main writ application) asked explanation from the petitioners about the above observation made by the Special Committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly.
9. That after the receipt and perusal of the explanation of the writ petitioner the Divisional Manager of Minor Forest Produce Project, Ranchi Division, Ranchi, reported to the respondent No. 3 vide his letter No 987, dated 23.7.2001 that it appeared from the explanation of the writ petitioners and the list of Munshi submitted therewith that Munshis who were appointed mostly belonged to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste communities."
5. It is, therefore, clear that even before giving show-cause notice calling for explanation, the punishment of withholding five increments was recommended by the Committee and in compliance of the aforesaid recommendation a formality was done by calling for explanation from the petitioners. No full-fledged inquiry much less a departmental inquiry was conducted before passing such an order of punishment. I, therefore, without going into the other questions with regard to competency of respondent No. 3 to issue impugned order, hold that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily and in violation of principles of natural justice.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. However, this order will not come in the way of the competent authority to proceed in accordance with law before imposing any punishment upon the petitioners.