CHHOTOO PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed by two petitioners, who claimed to belong to the Joint Cadre of Assistants of the Secretariat and the Attached Offices. Their grievance is against orders/letters, contained in Annexures 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the writ application.

(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid annexures shows that petitioners, who were earlier posted in the Co -operative Department, Government of Bihar, were suspected to be involved in defalcation/misuse of huge fund in the matter of fraudulent purchase of items in the Co -operative Department. In such circumstances, by Annexure -1, the Secretary, Co -operative Department, requested the Inspector -General, Investigation Bureau, Cabinet (Vigilance Department) to inquire into assets of six employees including both these petitioners. Annexure -2 is another letter of the Secretary, Cooperative Department to the Inspector -General, Home Special (Prisons) Department requesting him to obtain from petitioner No. 1, who was then posted in the Home Special (Prisons) Department, the details of his properties and income -expenses in a prescribed proforma. This was with a view to facilitating the inquiry by Vigilance Department. By Annexure -3, the Secretary of the Co -operative Department made same request to the Secretary of the Animal Husbandry Department where the petitioner No. 2 was then posted. By Annexure -4 petitioner No. 2 was directed by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department to submit the proforma relating to his assets and income, etc. for being made available to the Co -operative Department.

(3.) AFTER going through the Rules of 1992, referred above, which are incorporated as Annexure -5 to the writ application as well as the judgment in an earlier case, contained in Annexure -10, this Court finds that the administrative control over the joint cadre of assistants of the Secretariat and attached offices is vested in the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and the operational control is vested in the Department in which members of such joint cadre may be posted. In that view of the matter, there is no doubt that the disciplinary proceeding can be initiated only by or under the orders of the Secretary, Department of Administrative and Personnel Reforms. Similarly, order of punishment, including order of suspension can be passed only by such administrative authorities. However, in the present case, this Court finds that no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners so far nor any order of punishment or even order of suspension has been passed against the petitioners by the Secretary, Co -operative Department, Government of Bihar. The effect of letters and communications as contained in Annexures 1 to 4 which are under challenge in this writ application is only to initiate a preliminary inquiry or investigation to find out whether a case is made out for any action against the petitioners or not. Such future action may be departmental or criminal. There is nothing in the rules or in the judgment contained in Annexure -10 to prohibit a preliminary inquiry by the department or an authority of such department where an employee of joint cadre of assistants may have been posted earlier or may be suspected to have a hand in irregular or illegal transactions. In natural course, it is the authorities of department where an employee may have been posted at the relevant time who can detect such involvement and such authorities must be left free to get a preliminary inquiry or investigation conducted before a decision can be taken to initiate a disciplinary proceeding. Such power, in this case, cannot be denied to the authorities of the Department of Co -operative, where the petitioners were admittedly posted at the relevant time. Actions of the Secretary, Department of Co -operative do not violate any provision under any rule or law and such a course of action is in the interest of justice as well as in the public interest.