Pramod Kumar Sah vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“i. For quashing of the Memo No. 758 dated 24.7.2018 (Annexure 13) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka (Resp. No. 2), by which the petitioner, who has unblemished service record of 34 years of Govt. service has been imposed major punishment such as reduction to the lower scale of Super time Scale of the post of Clerk (Class-III), in most illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional manner that too without holding any regular departmental enquiry in gross violation of Article 311 (2) of Constitution of India against the settled principles of law.

ii. For further quashing of the Memo No. 197 dated 10.8.2018 (Annexure-14) issued by the Resp. No. 4; by which in pursuant to the aforesaid punishment order issued vide Memo No. 758 dated 24.7.2018 (Annexure-13) the basic pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced from 46100/- to 25500/- just 5 months prior to his retirement, which is harsh and disproportionate as the petitioner has unblemished service record of more than 34 years.

iii. For further direction to the respondents for grant of retiral benefits such as Gratuity, G.P.F. and Leave Encashment etc. and also to fix the final pension of the petitioner with all consequential benefits as the petitioner has retired from service on 31.1.2019.”

Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Sharabhil Ahmad, submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal and therefore, the present writ petition may not be entertained. The learned counsel submits that on the last occasion, when the case was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent and the respondents was directed to inform this Court as to whether the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal , but the impugned order of punishment has been imposed against the petitioner in gross violation of principle of natural justice and therefore the present writ petition has been filed. He submits that considering this aspect of the matter, this writ petition may be entertained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has already superannuated from his service.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of dispute involved in the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal, but the learned counsel for the petitioner is insisting that the writ petition should be entertained as the impugned order is alleged to have been passed in violation of principle of nature justice. This Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority is also competent to consider the grievance of the petitioner and would also consider the records of the proceedings and pass appropriate order. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on account of availability of efficacious alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of giving a liberty to the petitioner to avail the aforesaid alternative remedy against the impugned order and action before the competent authority within a period of one month from today.

It is observed that if an appeal is filed, the same shall be taken up on merit and be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of filing of the appeal.

Pending interlocutory application, if any , is closed.