MAHENDRA KUMAR RAJAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application, the petitioner is challenging the order of disciplinary proceeding passed against him on 10.02.2005 (Annexure-16) which was not interfered with and his appeal was rejected which order is dated 01.02.2006 (Annexure-23 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner).

(2.) Counter affidavit having been filed, the writ petition has been heard with consent of parties for disposal at this stage itself.

(3.) The petitioner was posted as Chief Medical Officer-cum- Civil Surgeon, Rohtas in between 02.06.1989 to 04.10.1991. During that period about Rs 35.85 lacs worth of medicines were indented from the Medical Store Depot (MSD), Kolkata under the authority of the petitioner. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that the said procurement was fraudulent and had been made in utter disregard to Government directives and circulars in this respect. Upon disciplinary proceeding having been initiated and chargesheet submitted, petitioner demanded papers. When they were not supplied, twice he came to this Court. Ultimately, some papers were given Petitioner filed his show cause and contested the matter. A complete defence statement was given. The Enquiry Officer, having analysed the evidence, found that out of the six indents in issue, three did not pertain to petitioner at all. He gave a clear finding that so far as fraud or misappropriation is concerned, the charges against the petitioner could not be established but then the Enquiry Officer found that petitioner had been negligent in performing his duties because of which fraud, at such large scale, was committed. There was no direct involvement of petitioner. It was only of dereliction of duty. Thus, the Enquiry Officer found charges partially proved. Upon the enquiry report: being submitted, while the authorities were considering the same, petitioner superannuated. Petitioner was already under suspension facing disciplinary proceeding. The proceedings were continued now with the aid of Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner clearly mentioning that in view of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as adverse to the petitioner, why 75% of pension and whole of gratuity and leave encashment be not forfeited. In response to the aforesaid, petitioner filed a detailed show cause challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer on various grounds. This was followed by the impugned order of punishment as contained in Annexure-16. The impugned order of punishment discloses that petitioner having been found guilty by the Enquiry Officer and the show cause having not been found satisfactory, punishment by withholding 75% of the pension and forfeiting the entire gratuity and leave encashment was passed. It is at this stage petitioner filed an appeal against this order as also the writ petition when nothing progressed in the appeal. During pendency of the writ petition, the appellate order was passed which has been appended as Annexure-23 to the supplementary affidavit and has been challenged as well. A perusal of the appellate order shows that it says that the Enquiry Officer had found petitioner guilty and the Disciplinary Authority had agreed. The Appellate Authority found no reason to take a different view of the matter. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed.