ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. At the relevant time, petitioner was serving as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Incharge, Madhubani and Jhanjharpur Circle. He is aggrieved by the notification of the State Government, bearing Memo No. 117 dated 15.2.2006, Annexure-8 where under he has been censured by recording such entry in his service book for the year 2000-2001, his three annual increments have also been withheld but without cumulative effect. Before issue of the said notification, petitioner was asked to show cause under Finance (Sales Tax) Department letter No. 573 dated 25.8.2001, Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner as to why he be not proceeded against for failure to comply the instruction of the District Magistrate, Madhubani, bearing order no. 1923/confidential dated 31.8.2000 whereunder he was deputed to serve as Deputy Treasury Officer, Jhanjharpur Treasury. In response to the aforesaid show cause, petitioner submitted his reply dated 30.1.2002, Annexure-7 to the writ petition where under petitioner stated that having received the office order of the District Magistrate, Madhubani dated 31.8.2000 deputing him to serve as Deputy Treasury Officer, Jhanjharpur Treasury, petitioner had written letter no. 358 dated 31.8.2000 and 439 dated 16.9.2000 where under he had invited the attention of the District Magistrate, Madhubani towards the fact that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur, who was serving as Treasury Officer of the Jhanjharpur Treasury, was junior to the petitioner and it would be very embarrassing for him to serve as Deputy to an officer who is junior to him. In the said letter, petitioner also pointed out that other officers of the Commercial Tax Department were available in Madhubani and Jhanjharpur, who are junior to the said Sub-Divisional Officer and they could be deputed to serve as Deputy Treasury Officer. In the show cause, petitioner further referred to his letter No. 367 dated 4.9.2000, Annexure-6 addressed to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department inviting the attention of the Commissioner that his deputation made by the District Magistrate, Madhubani under letter dated 31.8.2000 is contrary to the departmental instruction as also the fact that it is embarrassing for him to serve as deputy to the Treasury Officer, who was much junior to him in length of service. In the letter dated 4.9.2000, Annexure-6 petitioner also mentioned the name of the officers of the Commercial Tax Department, who were available in Jhanjharpur Circle and were junior to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was serving as Treasury Officer. Having considered the show cause reply of the petitioner dated 30.1.2002, Annexure-7, the State Government issued impugned punishment notification dated 15.2.2006, Annexure-8.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner assailed the said notification on the ground that District Magistrate, Madhubani had no jurisdiction to depute him as Deputy Treasury Officer without the permission of the authorities of the Commercial Tax Department, as under circular letter No. 4907 dated 12.8.1992, Annexure-1 and in the subsequent letter of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, bearing Memo No. 75/C dated 27.8.1998, Annexure-3, deputation of the officers of the Commercial Tax Department have been strongly deprecated by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax with instruction not to make such deputation without the approval of the Commercial Tax Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while punishing the petitioner under notification dated 15.2.2006, Annexure-8, the State Government does not appear to have considered the submission of the petitioner that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to depute the officer of the Commercial Tax Department for any work in the collector-ate or its attached offices without the express permission of the Commercial Tax Department. In this connection, he further submitted that from notification dated 15.2.2006, Annexure-8, it does not appear that the representation of the petitioner dated 31.8.2000 and 16.9.2000 addressed to the District Magistrate, Madhubani and 4.9.2000 addressed to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department and relied upon in the show cause reply dated 30.1.2002, Annexure-7 has been considered by the authorities while punishing him under notification dated 15.2.2006, Annexure-8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.8.2001, Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit, petitioner filed his reply on 30.1.2001, Annexure-7, but the matter remained pending in the Commercial Tax Department for about 4 years where after notification punishing the petitioner was issued on 15.2.2006, Annexure-8 i.e. after more than 4 years and appreciating the delay in issue of the notification punishing the petitioner, this Court should quash the said notification. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that close perusal of the notification dated 15.2.2006, Annexure-8 would indicate that while punishing the petitioner, the authorities have not indicated any reason for imposing the punishment. For failure to indicate reasons in support of the punishment notification, this Court should set aside the notification punishing the petitioner dated 15.2.2006, Annexure-8. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally submitted that the report of the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division dated 9.4.2001 in the light whereof notice dated 25.8.2001, Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit was issued, which has been referred to in the impugned punishment notification, having not been served on the petitioner and for failure to serve the letter of the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division dated 9.4.2001 on the basis of which notice dated 25.8.2001, Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit was issued and served on the petitioner, the impugned punishment notification dated 15.2.2006, Annexure-8 is fit to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the aforesaid submissions and submitted that petitioner was deputed to serve as Deputy Treasury Officer by the District Magistrate, Madhubani in an emergent situation which had arisen on account of cessation of work by the officers of the Bihar Administrative Service and on account of failure of the petitioner to comply the deputation order, problem of law and order had arisen before the District Administration, as the treasury was not functioning. He further submitted that in case petitioner had any problem in joining the deputed post, he should have first joined the post and thereafter invited the attention of the superior authorities. By not joining the deputed post, petitioner has shown insubordination. Insubordination in Government service cannot be permitted, that too in emergent situation when officers of the Bihar Administrative Service had ceased to function, the treasury, however, had to function and in appreciation of such fact, the District Magistrate, Madhubani deputed the petitioner to serve as Deputy Treasury Officer. On account of failure of the petitioner to join the deputed post, the treasury could not function, law and order problem had arisen. In appreciation of the aforesaid submission, this Court may not interfere with the impugned punishment notification dated 15.2.2006, Annexure-8, as there under only minor punishment has been imposed on the petitioner causing him only monetary loss.