Ashok Kumar Das vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the office letter 5919 dated 29.10.2018 issued under the signature of Principal

Secretary, Dept. of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, State of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder, the dismissal order issued vide memo no.

2710 dated 08.06.2017 by the office of the Jail Inspectorate, Home (Jail) Dept., Jharkhand has been confirmed. Further, prayer has been made for

quashing the memo No.2710 dated 08.06.2017 issued by the office of the Jail Inspectorate, Home (Jail) Dept., Jharkhand whereby and whereunder

the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to give the salary along with

interest and to pass order for continuing to work.

The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed vide office order dated 23th September 1983 as a

Driver for 2nd staff car in the pay scale of 480-10-620-E.D-10-1030. The service of the petitioner was confirmed from the date of Joining and also he

was allowed 1st A.C.P. on completion of 10 years of service from the date of joining. The respondents allowed all the benefits like ACP and Annual

increments to the petitioner as per his entitlement. Though the petitioner was appointed as a Driver, but the respondent-Jail Inspectorate vide memo

no. 112 dated 11.01.2017 directed the petitioner to work as a Dak Distributor (DAKVITRAK). The petitioner accepted to work as a Dak Distributor

without any protest but at the same time, on 17.01.2017 requested the respondents to provide him a vehicle along with an experienced person to assist

him for sometime. Thereafter, on 19.01.2017, a show cause notice was issued to explain, within two days as to why the petitioner has refused to

receive the letter. On receipt of the show cause, the petitioner submitted his reply on 20.01.2017. But, by rejecting the reply submitted by the

petitioner, he was put under suspension with immediate effect vide letter No. 327 dated 24.01.2017 issued by the respondents.

It is the further case of the petitioner that the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and “Praptra-ka†has also been

issued and petitioner was directed to file his statement within 60 days. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner replied on 7.02.2017 in detail and denied the

charges. The respondents after considering the report of Conducting Officer/Inquiry Officer, passed order of dismissal on 8th June 2017 vide letter no.

2710 and also it was ordered not to pay any payment to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner represented before the Chief Secretary,

Govt. of Jharkhand on 21.6.2017 for reconsideration of his case. However, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand vide order dated 29.10.2018

confirmed the dismissal order passed against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the punishment order submits that he is only aggrieved by the quantum of punishment.

The petitioner is IV Class employee and in the entire service career, no proceeding whatsoever has been initiated against him and there is nothing

adverse, save and except the current one. It is for the first time that order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner. The punishment of

dismissal from service against the petitioner is disproportionate to his act, which is illegal and malicious. Learned counsel further submits that the

petitioner was selected, appointed and working as a driver and when the petitioner was allotted to work as a DAK-VITRAK, he accepted the same,

but as he was appointed as a driver and had no experience of working as a DAKVIKTRAK, so he requested for a vehicle and an experienced

DAKVITRAK to let him acquainted in work assigned to him and as such, there is no illegality on the part of the petitioner as he never denied for new

assignment. The petitioner is sincere and prompt employee and always ready to follow the order of his superior. Learned counsel further argues that

so far as allegation of absence from duty on 19.01.2017 is concerned, the petitioner with prior information to Mr. Vijay Kumar Rajak, Constable had

gone to hospital for treatment of his ailing son and had joined his duty little late on the same date and has also submitted medical report to that extent

before the respondents. On such grounds, learned counsel prays for remanding the matter back to the respondent-authorities for reconsideration of his

case on the quantum of punishment.

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Syed Ramiz Zafar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no procedural latches on

the part of the respondents. Department proceeding was concluded following the procedures of law. The petitioner has been found guilty of the

charges as the charges have been proved in the departmental proceeding and the same has been approved by the Disciplinary Authority as well as

Appellate Authority. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner joined as a driver and was assigned the duties of distribution of letters for

which he demanded a staff and vehicle, which was not warranted and uncalled-for. He was also found absent from duties and as such, rightly the

punishment order of dismissal has been passed.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs

consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Driver and he was performing his duties to the full satisfaction of the Controlling

Authorities and there was no allegation or adverse remarks during his entire service career. By the order of Jail Superintendent, he was allotted to

work as a Dak Distributor (DAKVITRAK), which was totally a new assignment unknown to the petitioner and as such, order of dismissal appears to

be disproportionate to the allegation levelled against him.

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observation, rules and guidelines, the impugned order of dismissal is liable to the quashed and set aside and as

such, impugned orders dated 08.06.2017 and 29.10.2018 are quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the respondent-Authorities

for re-consideration of the case of the petitioner on the quantum of punishment, within a period of ten weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

Resultantly, instant writ petition stands disposed of.