JITENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna is directed against the order dated 9.3.2006, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13685 of 2001 (Jitendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & others), whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have been affirmed.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. During the period 1980-81, the services of the appellant were being availed by the Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation?). He was holding the post of Assistant Engineer. By an order dated 1.2.1997 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the appellant was placed under suspension on certain charges relating to defalcation of 100 metric tonnes of iron rod/ steel which was/were purchased by the Corporation for departmental use. On detection of the defalcation, a criminal case being Argora P.S. Case No.205/82 was also instituted under diverse sections of the Indian Penal Code against the main accused, namely, Shri Baliram Pandey, who was officiating as Works Manager of the said Corporation. The appellant preferred a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.1229 of 1997(R), against the order of suspension before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, which was disposed of by order dated 5.11.1997, with a direction that the authorities shall conclude the departmental proceeding within six months, and if not so concluded the order of suspension against the petitioner shall stand revoked. The appellant was thereafter served with a charge-sheet vide Memo No.265, dated 20.1.1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). A reply to the same was submitted by the appellant vide his letter dated 2.4.1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), wherein he denied his involvement in the criminal case as well as the allegation that he indulged in criminal conspiracy with the main accused of the said criminal case, namely, Baliram Pandey in defalcating the Corporation property and causing undue gains to himself. The appellant also denied the other articles of charges that were framed by the department. It appears that the department by a communication dated 20.1.1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) had already appointed an enquiry officer to conduct the departmental proceeding in terms of rule-55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules?). On few dates fixed in the departmental proceeding the appellant appeared before the enquiry officer. A detail questionnaire was made over to the appellant for his response. The appellant responded to the said questionnaire which was made over to the enquiry officer. On conclusion of the enquiry proceeding, the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer, wherein he was held guilty of the charges. The appellant in the meanwhile again approached the then Ranchi Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2253 of 1998 (R) questioning the continuance of the departmental proceeding with a prayer that the proceeding itself should be dropped. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 7.9.1999 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) with the following observations/directions: ...I am not inclined to interfere with such departmental proceeding till a final order is passed, in accordance with law. The petitioner, if so choose, may file reply to the second show cause and take all the pleas as has been taken in the present application. If such reply is filed then respondents will take the same into consideration and will pass a final order within the period of one month in accordance with law.

(3.) In view of the order of this Court, the suspension of the appellant was revoked by a communication dated 13.7.1998, with effect from 5.5.1998. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause notice on 1.8.1998 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), indicating therein the proposed punishment based on the findings of the enquiry report and soliciting response of the appellant. The appellant submitted his show-cause on 1.9.1998 (Annexure-9). The disciplinary authority ultimately on consideration of the findings passed an order on 9.1.1999 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition), inflicting the following punishment on the appellant: (i) Censure for the year 1980-81; (ii) Direction to fix his salary in the minimum of scale; and (iii) No amount other than the subsistence allowance would be paid to the appellant for the period he was kept under suspension.