Jharkhand High Court
Shiv Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 9 December, 2015
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3066 of 2014
Shiv Kumar Verma, son of Sudama Verma, resident of Village
Purandaha, P.O. ,P.S. & District-Deoghar .........Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O.,P.S.
& District-Dumka
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O.,P.S. & District-Dumka
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari
For the Respondents: Mr. Jay Prakash, A.A.G.
Mr. Yogesh Modi, J.C. to AAG
6/09.12.2015: This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.07.2011 as contained in Order No. 133 of 2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka whereby , he dismissed the petitioner from the service. Petitioner further prayed for quashing the order dated 05.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka whereby, he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner bearing Appeal No. 02 of 2011-2012.
2. It appears that the petitioner was working under the Resp. No. 3 as a Jeep Driver. It appears that while, he was posted in the District Revenue Office, Dumka, he was transferred to Ramgarh Circle Office, Ramgarh. However, it is alleged that he refused to receive the relieving order from two peons, namely, Surendra Paswan and Dhaneshwar Murmu. It is further alleged that the Additional Collector had also asked the petitioner to receive the relieving order and hand over the key of the Jeep to the new Driver but he disobeyed the aforesaid oral instruction of the Additional Collector. It is also alleged that while the petitioner was working as Driver under the Additional Collector, Dumka, he had not properly maintained the Log Book. It is also stated that on demand, he had not produced the Log Book.
3. On the aforesaid allegations, charges framed against the petitioner on 28.09.2010 and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Bhagat, Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dumka was appointed as Inquiry Officer. By the same order, Block Development Officer, Ramgarh was appointed as Presenting Officer. It is stated that after issuance of first charge sheet, another charge sheet also issued on 29.12.2010 relating to misconduct of the petitioner at the Ramgarh Circle Office. For the said charges also, the L.R.D.C., Dumka was appointed as Inquiry Officer and B.D.O., Ramgarh was appointed as Presenting Officer. It is stated that thereafter the Inquiry Officer asked the petitioner to file written statement, which the petitioner filed on 15.01.2011, wherein the petitioner denied all the allegations made against him. It then appears -2- that the Inquiry Officer asked the Presenting Officer to give his opinion on the written statement given by the petitioner. It further appears that after receiving the aforesaid opinion, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report on 09.05.2011 and 10.05.2011. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka gave 2nd show cause notice to the petitioner and after receiving the reply of the 2 nd show cause notice, he dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 08.07.2011 ( Annexure-5). It appears that against the aforesaid order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka vide Appeal No. 02 of 2011-2012, which was also dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 05.09.2013 ( Annexure-8). Against the aforesaid two orders, i.e. Annexures - 5 and -8, this writ application filed.
4. Sri Vishal Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been dismissed from service without holding the departmental proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Subordinate Services( Discipline and Appeal ) Rules. It is submitted that without any evidence, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka has come to the conclusion that acts and omissions of the petitioner is highly indisciplined and therefore, he does not deserve to continue in the services. It is submitted that from the records of the departmental proceeding, which has been produced today, it is clear that the Inquiry Officer has not carried out any inquiry. He submitted his report only on the basis of opinion given by the presenting officer and the Deputy Commissioner, in most mechanical manner, has relied upon the said inquiry report and dismissed the petitioner. Thus, the order of dismissal is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
5. Sri Jay Prakash, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-state submits that since the petitioner has admitted his guilt in the charge handing over report dated 31.08.2009, therefore, the charges stand proved against him. Hence, there is no illegality in the orders impugned. However, after going through the record of the departmental proceeding, learned AAG, fairly stated that the aforesaid charge handing over report has not been exhibited in the departmental proceeding. He also fairly submits that none of the witnesses produced by the department for proving the charges levelled against the petitioner, nor petitioner was given any opportunity to cross examine them.
6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case as well as the records of the inquiry proceedings produced by Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, and Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dumka, who are present in Court in compliance of order dated 02.12.2015. From perusal of charge handing over report -3- dated 31.08.2009, I find that in fact, petitioner has not admitted that the relieving letter served upon him, rather he specifically stated therein that on 29.08.2009, he was suffering from typhoid and admitted in the Sadar Hospital, Dumka and while he was in unconscious state on 30.08.2009, a peon of Additional Collector, came and tried to serve the relieving letter, which in fact, the petitioner could not receive, because at that time he was unconscious. Thus, the submission of Sri Jai Prakash, learned A.A.G. that the petitioner admitted his guilt in the charge report is not correct. The record of the departmental proceeding further shows that the department has not produced any witness to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner but in spite of that the Inquiry Officer submitted his report against the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, dismissed the petitioner from the services on the basis of above inquiry report. Thus, I find that the order of dismissal is against the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. I further find that even the appellate authority ( Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka) has not considered the aforesaid materials, which were specifically stated by the petitioner in the memo of appeal. Thus, the order passed by the appellate authority ( Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka) is also not sustainable.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I find that both the impugned orders are violative of the principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, therefore, cannot be sustaiend.
8. Accordingly, I allow this writ application and quash the impugned orders as contained in Annexures- 5 and -8 to this writ application.
9. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages.
( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-