Ram Gupta vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

1.Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Awanish Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard on merit.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order of punishment dated 20.12.2016. The prayer is also made for direction to the

respondents to grant arrears of salary for the period between 14.10.1988 to 18.07.1989.

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Touring Veterinary Officer, in pursuance to one notification dated 03.10.1986. The petitioner rendered

his services to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents. The petitioner was transferred in pursuance to one notification dated 22.06.1989 from the

post of Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Tandwa, Hazaribag to give his joining as Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Pirtand, Giridih. The petitioner

was relieved on 01.11.1988. The petitioner went there for joining, but some another person was already working there and an interim arrangement

was made and the petitioner was given temporary posting on the direction of the Regional Director. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has worked there

w.e.f. 14.10.1988 to 18.07.1989. After vacating the said post by another person, the petitioner was again transferred to that Block, where, he joined on

07.11.1988. One departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in pursuance to one resolution dated 05.08.2015, enquiry was conducted

and charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to reply second show-cause, which was submitted by the petitioner and,

thereafter, punishment order dated 20.12.2016 has been passed, whereby, it was ordered that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized for

the period between 14.10.1988 to 18.07.1989 and direction was also issued to recover the amount for the aforesaid period from the earned salary of

the petitioner. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has moved before this Court.

Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Enquiry Officer has come to the

conclusion that the petitioner is not fully liable for such payment of salary for the aforesaid period. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer has put

responsibility upon the Regional Director, Hazaribag. He also submits that the petitioner is not at fault. The petitioner was not the drawing and

disbursing officer and he was not authorized for payment of salary for the aforesaid period. He further submits that there is no reason for passing the

impugned order against the petitioner. The petitioner has worked in pursuance of the direction issued by his superior authority. He also submits that in

the counter affidavit, it has been disclosed that the Finance Department has opined that at that time AHD Scam was at its peak and that is why the

petitioner's regularization was not allowed. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily. The petitioner has now retired on

29.02.2020.

Per contra, Mr. Awanish Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent- State submits that in absence of order of RDD office, the petitioner has

received salary through pay slip and, therefore, the Finance Department has directed the Department to initiate departmental proceeding against the

petitioner. He further submits that it was opined by the Finance Department that the AHD Scam was at its peak at that time and, therefore, such

direction was issued. He also submits that departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and thereafter punishment order has been

passed. He further submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court has ventured to examine the documents available on record, wherein, it transpires that the

Enquiry Officer in his report has opined in clear terms that the petitioner is not fully responsible for payment of salary in absence of any order of RDD

office, whereas, responsibility has been put upon the Regional Director, Hazaribag by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has also opined that

the petitioner's services can be regularized in terms of earned leave. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was transferred from Tandwa,

Hazaribagh to Pirtand, Giridih. The petitioner went there for joining, but due to one person, who was already functioning his service there, the

petitioner did not join there and an interim arrangement was made and the petitioner was given temporary posting on the direction of the Regional

Director. The petitioner has worked during that period. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner has not obtained salary at his own. The salary

was paid on the direction of the Regional Director. The petitioner was also not involved in AHD Scam. Thus, the stand of the Finance Department, as

stated in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit is preposterous. What has happened, that was beyond the control of the petitioner. The liability cannot

be fastened upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment dated 20.12.2016, contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition is

quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for the consequential benefits.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.