MADIHUZZAMAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the corrigendum notification No. 8034(S) dated 25.10.2005, bearing Memo No. 8035(S) dated 25.10.2005, Annexure -1 whereunder punishment notification No. 2005 (S) dated 20.4.2005, bearing Memo No. 2006(S) dated 20.4.2005, Annexure -2 withholding 3% of his pension emolument has been modified and petitioner has been imposed further punishment of recovery of 66,900/ in the light of notification No. 10097(S) dated 18,11.1999, bearing Memo No. 10098(S) dated 18.11.1999, Annexure -3. At the relevant time, petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer in the Rural Engineering Organisation, Works Division, Muzaffarpur. During his tenure as Executive Engineer of the aforesaid Division, short supply of the bitumen to the extent of 58.844 Metric Ton was received in the Division for which departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under the Resolution of the State Government, bearing Memo No. 10209 dated 20.11.1999, Annexure -4. Perusal of the Resolution of the State Government dated 20.11.1999, Annexure -4 would indicate that alongwith the resolution, memo of charge was also served on the petitioner clearly indicating that the short supply of bitumen was received in the Division in connivance with Sri Nandu Pandey, Junior Engineer, who was authorized to receive bitumen from Haldja. Petitioner is also said to have taken no action against either the Junior or the Assistant Engineer, who were responsible for receiving short supply of the bitumen from Haldia. In response to the charge -sheet, petitioner submitted his written defence, bearing letter No. 2176 dated 13.12.1999, Annexure -6 admitting the fact that at the time short supply of Bitumen was received he held the charge of the Division but after he relinquished charge on 23.6.1990 till the date of issue of charge -sheet dated 20.11.1999 he was never called upon to explain the short supply of bitumen in the Division. He further submitted in the reply that he requires document to file his written defence as proceedings has been initiated belatedly. Petitioner in his written defence, however, has not disputed the fact that short supply of bitumen to the extent of 58.44 Metric Ton valued at 2,23,000/ -was received in the Division. Contention raised by the petitioner in the written defence that without the availability of the documents it may. not be possible for him to submit his written defence, appears to be wholly misconceived in view of the fact that the charge -sheet not only indicates the date on which short supply of bitumen was received but also the manner in which Junior Engineer, who was authorized by the petitioner to receive bitumen and the Assistant Engineer connived with each other in receiving the bitumen in short supply. In view of the contents of the charge -sheet, statement of the petitioner in the written defence dated 13.12.1999, Annexure -6 that he is absolutely unaware about the charges levelled against him, is wholly misconceived. Petitioner also realized the aforesaid position and submitted further written defence dated 21.1.2000 and 15.3.2000 in which he admitted that short supply of bitumen was received in the Division during his tenure but shifted the blame for receiving short supply of bitumen on the Junior, Assistant Engineer, who were authorized to receive the bitumen by him.

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the second show cause notice served on the petitioner; he was only called upon to show cause as to why his pension emolument be not withheld to the extent of 3%. In the said second show cause notice, petitioner was never called upon to explain as to why a sum of 66,900/ - be not also recovered from him.