RAM RAJ PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Sub -Divisional Agriculture Officer, Saran, Chapra, contained in Memo No. 154 dated 5th September, 1998 (Annexure -16), whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 16,006.62 has been found to be recoverable from him.

(2.) PETITIONER retired as Farm Assistant from Agriculture Department on 23 -2 -1994. A sum of Rs. 16,007.00 was deducted from his gratuity. He being aggrieved by it filed C.W.J.C. No. 13035 of 1996 in this Court. It appears that the said deduction was made under three different heads vide order passed by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Saran Division, Chapra without even affording any opportunity to him. This Court vide order dated 6 -1 -1998, contained in Annexure -12, quashed the order whereby deduction for the said amount was passed. The Court, however, directed that if the authorities want to deduct any amount then they should given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter will decided as to whether the said amount can be deducted or not. The Court further directed that if any amount is found due against the petitioner after determination the same should be deducted from his post -retirement benefit and disposed of the writ petition accordingly. Thereafter, the petitioner was given notice to appear and place his case. The petitioner made representation before the Sub -Divisional Agriculture Officer, Chapra and requested for supply of certain documents as contained in Annexure -14, but the same was never supplied to him nor it was produced before the authority while hearing the parties. Petitioner again sent reminder vide representation dated 17 -8 -1998, contained in Annexure -15, but the Sub -Divisional Agriculture Officer (Respondent No. 8) passed the impugned order without making available all the relevant documents asked for by the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that bare perusal of the impugned order would show that it is a cryptic one and no reason whatsoever has been assigned for deciding that a sum of Rs. 16,006.62 is recoverable from the petitioner. As such, the said order is fit to be quashed on this ground alone. He, further, submitted that the impugned order is also bad in law as no amount has been found to be recoverable on the charge of negligence of the petitioner in storing the grains, which was damaged during flood, on 14. -8 -1987. it is not the case of the Respondents that any departmental proceeding while the petitioner was in service in terms of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or a proceeding in terms of Rule 43 or 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules was ever initiated after his retirement, and in which finding has been recorded. As such, the entire action for recovery on the face of the said Rules is bad in law.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 8. In the said counter -affidavit, it is stated that after receipt of the representation from the petitioner one Sri J.N. Singh S.M.S. Muzaffarpur was appointed as conducting officer for the inquiry. It is further stated that he has expressed in his report that the petitioner is responsible for the damage and requested the Joint Director, Agriculture, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur to realise the cost from him after receiving the loss report from the Sub -Divisional Agriculture Officer (East), Muzaffarpur. The said report has been annexed as Annexure -B. It is, thus, stated that on the request of the petitioner, inquiry was made and the report was submitted to the Joint Director, Agriculture, Muzaffarpur. Learned State Counsel has, thus, submitted that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order. He, however, has not been able to show that any proceeding either in terms of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, while the petitioner was in service was initiated with respect to the aforementioned charge or that after his retirement a proceeding was initiated in terms of Rule 43(b) or 139. of the Bihar Pension Rules for fixing responsibility upon the petitioner for the alleged damage of food -grains. Under such circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the validity of he impugned order (Annexure -16).