PRABHU NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the order of the District Magistrate -cum -Chairman, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Aurangabad contained in his memo No. 1036 dated 11.7.98 dismissing him from service in a departmental proceedings. The petitioner also seeks consequential reliefs as a result of quashing of the order of dismissal.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee under DRDA, Aurangabad as an Assistant. While working on the post of Assistant -cum -Accountant Incharge, he was placed under suspension by the District Magistrate -cum -Chairman, DRDA vide his letter No. 1921 dated 29.10.97 on certain charges with respect to which a departmental proceedings was also initiated against him. The inquiry was held by the District Development Officer, Aurangabad. The petitioner filed his show cause/written statement to the memo of charges and thereafter participated in the inquiry. On 13.4.98 the Inquiry Officer submitted his findings. On 19.5.98 vide memo No. 646 the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Along with the show cause notice, copy of the said inquiry report dated 13.4.98 was enclosed. The petitioner filed second show cause on 3.6.98. On 11.7.98, he was dismissed from service by the impugned order. Copy of the order is Annexure -8 to the writ petition.

(3.) BEFORE going into the merit of the contentions, it would be appropriate to state some relevant facts of the present case having bearing on the point involved. The departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner with respect to as many as 27 charges, such as, non -submission of accounts of the office for verification, temporary misappropriation of money payable as salary to one Smt. Pushpa Lata for the month of December 1993, non -completion of the pending works, leaving sheets in the Accounts Registrar blank to facilitate manipulation of records, opening new files on his own will, irregularities in the repair work of DRDA building, amassment of wealth disproportionate to known sources of income, etc. etc. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from 10 out of 27 charges, to be precise, charge Nos. 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 22, 24 and 25. The remaining 17 charges were found to be proved. The District Magistrate in his impugned order held that 20 charges were proved against the petitioner. Apart from the 17 charges with respect to which the Inquiry Officer had recorded adverse findings, he held charge Nos. 17, 22 and 25 also to be proved. In other words, he disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer with respect to those three charges. It is relevant to mention here that so far as charge No. 17 relating to submission of the files directly to the superior officers by passing the proper channel is concerned, though the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer was favourable to the petitioner, the facts constituting the charge were not denied by the petitioner either before the Inquiry Officer or even before the District Magistrate in his second show cause. The Inquiry Officer gave him benefit of doubt observing that sometimes on the direction of the Superior Officer, the files might have been sent directly to them. Thus, the facts consisting the charge not being disputed, the difference of opinion between the Inquiry Officer and the District Magistrate which needed to be explained to the latter related to only two charges, I.e., charge Nos. 22 and 25, Charge No. 22 related to the non -submission of the records as a result of which the questions asked in the Lok Sabha could not be replied within time. Charge No. 25 related to purchase of machinery from the Bihar Agro Industries.