Arun Kumar Jha vs The State of Jharkhand, The Deputy Commissioner and The Deputy Collector Establishment

J.C.S. Rawat, J.—This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the relief to quash the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih vide Memo No. 1026 dated 10.12.2007 by which, it was indicated that the petitioner has committed irregularities as provided under Rule 167 of the Miscellaneous Rules and byelaws and he directed to conduct a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. He further indicated in the order that the Additional Collector, Land Reforms, Giridih and the Block Development Officer (BDO), Bagodar had been appointed as the Enquiry Officer in the said proceeding with a direction to conduct the said enquiry within 90 days from the date of passing the order.

The admitted fact of the case is that the petitioner was working as Nazir at Gama Block and he was given a show cause notice on 12.7.01, by which, it was directed to submit his explanation as he has committed certain irregularities in the said office and a reply thereof was submitted. Thereafter, the suspension order was passed on 22.10.05 against the petitioner alongwith other two persons. In the said suspension order, the B.D.O., Bagodar was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner by Annexure-5 to the writ application mentioning therein that the Government money has not. been defalcated and all the accounts were cleared and therefore, a recommendation for revocation of the suspension of the petitioner was made. Thereafter, the petitioner''s suspension was not revoked and the enquiry was also not dropped, Thereafter the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WP(S) No. 5460 of 2006 before tins Court, in which, the Court has directed as under;

In view of the nature of the claim, this writ application is disposed of remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih to pass an appropriate order on the basis of the recommendation of the B.D.O., Bagodar and also the other relevant records. If there are materials in support of the allegations against the petitioners, the said authority shall pass a necessary order for conducting and concluding the departmental proceeding within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the subsistence allowance of the petitioner No. 1 has not been paid, as claimed by him, the arrears of the same must be paid to him within a period of two weeks from the dale of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the departmental proceeding is not concluded within the said period, the petitioners'' suspension shall stand revoked.

Pursuant to the said order, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a contempt petition was filed and the suspension of the petitioner was revoked during the pendency of the contempt petition and further Annexure-8, the impugned order, was passed by the Deputy Cemmissioner, Giridih.

Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record.

The learned Counsel for die petitioner; contended that while passing the suspension order, Annexure-3 of the writ petition, the allegations against the petitioner was that the certain irregularities have been committed by the petitioner in his tenure and an enquiry was directed to be conducted. Prior to that, notices dated 12.7.05 and 8.9.05, Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ application, respectively, were given to the petitioner. It was further contended that the allegations were found baseless and the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner with a recommendation that his suspension order be revoked; the authority concerned did not act in accordance with the recommendation made by the Block Development Officer, hence the petitioner filed the writ application, in winch the above direction was made; the suspension order was revoked and further die enquiry was directed to be conducted within 90 days. He further contended that there was no material before the Deputy Commissioner against the petitioner and the petitioner was exonerated for the charges, which have already been directed to be enquired.

The learned Counsel appearing for the State refuted the contention advance by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that Annexure-3 to the writ application clearly envisages that the B.D.O. was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. He should have got the charges framed, thereafter, the reply of the petitioner would have been obtained against the charges and then the evidence would have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer. During the pendency of the enquiry, the parties should have been given a fair opportunity of being heard and thereafter, he would have recorded the findings of innocence or guilty. The learned Counsel could not demonstrate me that any such charges were got framed or any reply was obtained or any evidence was directed to be produced by the Department and thereafter, the charges were found not to be proved. The Enquiry Officer i.e. B.D.O. did not adhere the provision of law in conducting the enquiry and exonerating the petitioner from his charges. The District Commissioner had ordered for departmental enquiry in this matter and again Enquiry Officer has been appointed for the Departmental Enquiry and the suspension order was revoked by the D.C.

The Court in W.P.(S) No. 5460 of 2006 has already directed that if there are material in support of the allegations against the petitioner, the said authority shall pass a necessary order for conducting and concluding the departmental proceeding within the stipulated period. If the enquiry against the petitioner is not concluded within the said period, the suspension order, as per the order of this Court, shall be revoked.

While disposing of the writ application dealing with the departmental enquiry or any orders passed in the said enquiry, this Court is not sitting as an appellate Court, the Court has only to see the mode and manner of conducting the enquiry and not beyond that. Thus in the instant Case, it is made clear that the enquiry, conducted by me B.D.O., Bagodar has not been made properly and as such, the Deputy Commissioner was the competent authority to ask to proceed with the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner. Thus I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the D.C. In view of the above, die petition of the petitioner fails and liable to be dismissed in limine.

However, the Enquiry Officers are directed to conclude the Enquiry within a period of four months from the date of presentation of this order and when the enquiry would be concluded, the Departmental Authority shall take a decision within a period of two months, thereafter and at the time of submitting the said report, the Enquiry Officer will also point out the order of this Court to the Competent Officer.