ASHOK KUMAR PATHAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order of dismissal dated 1185 dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure-7) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service as well as directed to recover 1/3rd amount of Rs. 312.57 lacs from the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner at the relevant point of time i.e. during 5.11.2005 to 19.4.2007, was serving as a Head-clerk of Palasi Block, Araria. While posting there, on the instruction of the Block Development Officer, he deposited the money of centrally sponsored scheme of Indira Awas Yojana in DEHTI PACS instead of depositing the same in the nationalized bank in the background of the letter of Deputy Development Commissioner, Araria vide Memo No. 1736 dated 2.12.2000 had permitted deposited S.G.R.Y. fund in the PACS account. In pursuance thereof, the Block Development Officer opened the account in DEHTI PACS on 17.1.2004 vide Account No. 13 and for flood relief (Indira Awas) Account No. 48 was opened on 30.1.2004 by Md. Shamim Akhtar, the then Block Development Officer, Araria, on account of deposit of money, initiated a departmental proceeding issuing Charge-sheet dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure-3) making an allegation that the petitioner had opened the account in the DEHTI PACS and deposited the money in violation of the guideline relating to the fund of Central Government under the Indira Awas. In violation of direction, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Araria vide Memo No. 977 dated 26.9.2006, letter no. 1125 dated 21.11.2006 and letter no. 163 dated 13.10.2007 by which an instruction was given to deposit the money of Indira Awas Yojana to the Nationalized Bank instead of depositing the money in the DEHTI PACS.

(3.) The Deputy Election Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the then Block Development Officer was appointed as Presenting Officer. The petitioner filed his show-cause, Annexure5, from the enquiry proceedings, it appears in the order-sheet that the Enquiry Officer completed the entire proceeding in five sittings, first date of proceeding is dated 9.9.2009 which indicates calling upon the petitioner to file show-cause and, on the next date i.e. on 10.10.2009, the present petitioner was present and the Presenting Officer was absent, on next date fixed on 26.10.2009, on that date, the petitioner filed his show-cause but, the Presenting Officer remained absent, next date was fixed on 5.11.2009, on that day also, the petitioner was present but, the Presenting Officer remained absent. On next date, the Disciplinary Authority directed the Presenting Officer to give his own comment. On 3.12.2009, the Presenting Officer submitted his comment, the enquiry closed, fixed for the report, whereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 8.2.2010 finding the charges proved against the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Araria vide Memo No. 630 dated 24.4.2010 served the enquiry reported to the petitioner for his second show-cause which was filed by the petitioner dated 14.6.2010, has stated that neither he had opened the account nor he had deposited any money to the DEHIT PACS, further said that the document relating to deposit of the money was never placed before the petitioner nor he had ever recommended for depositing the money in the DEHIT PACS. Further plea has been taken that the block offices was under the supervision and control of the Block Development Officer who used to take a policy decision. Further said that there was no role of Head-clerk in opening and depositing the money. He has further said that many times, he verbally shown caution to the Block Development Officer about depositing the huge amount in the DEHTI PACS. The staff working under the superior authority will have little courage to oppose the move of the higher authority. Even then he has given his note that it will not be feasible and proper to deposit the money in the Dehti PACS which can be verified by calling the concerned records from Nazarat. Many a times, he has raised this issue but, never his advice was taken seriously, continued to deposit the central sponsored fund in the DEHTI PACS. He was not substantively promoted to the post of Head-clerk but, he was orally asked to discharge the duty of Head-clerk. Further said that he has not suppressed anything from the Disciplinary Authority, wrongly the responsibility has been shifted upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the enquiry report which is part of the counter affidavit as Annexure A/2.