SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) At the relevant time, petitioner served as Correspondence Clerk in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sone Project, Aurangabad. He was proceeded against in the light of the office order dated 1.7.2006, Annexure-2 issued by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, in compliance whereto memo of charge dated 18.8.2006 was served on the petitioner, perusal whereof indicates that he is said to have misplaced the records of Land Acquisition Case No. 25/2000-01 maintained in connection with acquisition of land for Yari Minor in Village-Adari, P.S.-Deo, No. 887 measuring an area of 0.58 acres of land. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation visited Aurangabad on 30.6.2006 when the landholder Sri Satyendra Pandey appeared before him and brought to his notice the fact of acquisition of his lands for Yari Minor in Village-Adari without payment of compensation for the acquired lands. In the light of the allegation of the landholder Sri Satyendra Pandey the matter was enquired into from the Head Clerk Parshuram Singh who stated that records concerning Yari Minor bearing no. 25/2000-01 was in the charge of the petitioner who did not hand over the same at the time of his transfer to Sitamarhi in January, 2004 and for the reason of non-availability of the records payment to the landholder has not been made,. Under office order dated 1.7.2006, Annexure-2 petitioner was placed under suspension for misplacing records of Land Acquisition Case No. 25/2000-01, negligence and dereliction of duty. In compliance of the order dated 1.7.2006, Annexure-2 charge-sheet dated 18.8.2006 was served on the petitioner enclosing his charge report to establish that he did not hand over charge of the records of Case No. 25/2000-01. In response to the memo of charge petitioner filed his written defence before the Enquiry Officer, copy whereof for reasons best known to the petitioner and his counsel has not been placed on record. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that records of Land Acquisition Case No. 25/2000-01 was under submission before the authorities and as the same was not available with petitioner the records of Case No. 25/2000-01 could not be handed over to the reliever at the time of handing over of charge and in appreciation of the said fact petitioner deserves to be exonerated of the charge levelled against him.

(3.) XXX