GANPATI JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the State and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

(2.) Petitioner at the relevant time served as Depot Manager on deputation under Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 at their Bettiah Depot, is aggrieved by the order dated 8.7.2010, Annexure-8 to this application, whereunder he has been directed to deposit 40% of the amount of loss caused in the depot i.e. ' 4,25,314/-. Prior to issue of the impugned order, Petitioner was served with notice dated 4.12.2009, Annexure-5 asking him to show cause as to why MRP of 13081 bottles which was lost in the depot amounting to ' 10,63,285/-during the period between 16.12.2007 to 18.8.2009, which appears to be a mistake for 18.8.2008, be not recovered from him. In response to the notice, Petitioner requested Respondent No. 2 the author of notice dated 4.12.2009, Annexure-5 under his letter dated 14.12.2009, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit to furnish copy of the documents required by him to file his show cause reply. From the counter affidavit, it appears that the documents required by the Petitioner under letter dated 14.12.2009 to file his show cause reply was served on the Petitioner under letter dated 21.12.2009, Annexure-D through one Ramnath on 23.12.2009 as is evident from extract from the Dispatch Register, Annexure-E. Petitioner disputed receipt of the documents in the writ petition and rejoinder affidavit, however, admitted filing of his show cause reply dated 29.12.2009, 2.2.2010, Annexures-6,7 in which he again requested Respondent No. 2 to furnish all the audit reports as also the report of the Committee constituted by Respondent No. 2 to go into the aspect of stock verification of Depot made during his tenure. He further explained in his show cause that demand draft of ' 1,22,824/- has not been entered into the computer. He further filed show cause dated 2.2.2010, Annexure-7 explaining demand draft dated 12.4.2008 for ' 25,000/-, Nine drafts of the value of ' 2,59,600 dated 24.4.2008 and other drafts mentioned therein and further submitted that unless position of the stock of the depot is verified from the date of its establishment the loss caused during the period between 16.12.2007 to 18.8.2008 cannot be assessed. In this connection, he also relied upon the information furnished by him to the General Manager under letter dated 14.1.2008, Annexure-11 to the second supplementary affidavit as also the order of the Managing Director dated 30.4.2008 whereunder the Managing Director having learnt about the lack of maintenance of the account in the depot from the Petitioner, directed the Petitioner to lodge First Information Report for the loss caused in the depot from the date the depot was established till 15.12.2007 i.e. just a few days prior to the Petitioner assuming charge on 5.1.2008. In compliance of the direction of the Managing Director, Petitioner reported the matter to the Officer-in-charge, Bettiah Police Station about the shortage in the depot from the date of its establishment till 15.12.2007 i.e. shortage of 16,850 bottles. The report was made under letter No. 99 dated 2.5.2008. Counsel for the parties are not aware about the result of the First Information Report lodged by the Petitioner on 2.5.2008. The Managing Director, Respondent No. 2 having considered the show cause reply dated 29.12.2009 and 2.2.2010, Annexures-6 and 7 fixed 6.1.2010 the date of hearing in the proceeding when the Petitioner requested him to furnish copy of the audit report, the Managing Director having considered such request, directed under order dated 6.1.2010 to furnish the internal audit report to the Petitioner which the counsel for the Respondents states was actually furnished to the Petitioner under letter dated 27.1.2010, which was served on him on the same day in his office i.e. the office of the Forest Development Corporation where it was received by Sri Suresh Thakur, Peon serving in that office and such fact is evident from the signature of Sri Suresh Thakur on the extract from the Issue Register, Annexure-B.

(3.) Counsel for the Corporation states that service of the letter dated 21.12.2009, 27.1.2010, Annexures D, A on Suresh Thakur and Ramnath be accepted as service on the Petitioner.