Ramjee Paswan vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Learned counsel for the parties are present.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 7037 of 2005 against the punishment of dismissal from the service. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.08.2013 by recording a finding that penalty of dismissal from the service imposed upon the petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to the charges found proved during departmental enquiry and the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority for taking a fresh decision on the question of quantum of punishment. He submits that ultimately vide memo No. 2361 dated 04.10.2013 , interalia , the punishment of stoppage of one year increment with non-cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner; nothing more, apart from the amount already paid, was payable for the period of suspension i.e. from 02.12.1996 to 26.11.1998 and the said period was to be adjusted with half pay leave, and so far as the period from 27.11.1998 to 03.10.2013 is concerned, the wages were refused on account of ‘no work no pay’ and the period was to be adjusted against extraordinary leave.

The learned counsel submits that order of punishment was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3328 of 2017 which was subject matter of appeal in L.P.A. No. 72 of 2018 disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2018 as contained in Annexure-1. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order passed by the L.P.A. Court, an enquiry was conducted as to whether the petitioner was gainfully employed or not during the period he remained under order of dismissal. The learned counsel submits that as per the enquiry report the petitioner was not gainfully employed anywhere but still by the impugned order, back wages have been denied by referring to the bank pass book of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the order does not even reflect the amount of credit and debit entry made in the pass book of the petitioner and in spite of the enquiry having been held in favour of the petitioner, the impugned order refusing to give the differential wages to the petitioner is perverse.

At this the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that although a counter affidavit has been filed but a copy of the bank pass book which is available in the records can be filed before this court for consideration and the said pass book will reflect the debit and credit entries in the bank account of the petitioner.

The respondents are directed to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record a copy of the bank pass book of the petitioner which appears to have considered while passing the impugned order pursuant to order passed in LPA No. 72 of 2018. The affidavit of the respondents should be filed latest by 13.05.2022.

Post this case on 07.06.2022.

Let this matter be treated as part heard.