SHAILESH KUMAR OJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal, as contained in Annexure-11, passed by the Principal Secretary of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department as well as the order of rejection of his review application, as contained in Annexure-13.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court the charges framed against the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-5. The charges were found proved by the Inquiry Officer. Hence, a second show cause notice was issued alongwith a copy of the enquiry report and petitioner was given an opportunity to file representation against the same. Accordingly, petitioner filed his representation, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-10. This representation runs into 11 pages. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed the representation in detail before this Court from which it appears that the petitioner has given the facts and circumstances of the case in detail which ultimately led to passing of the order, by the Collector, Kishanganj settling the lands in favour of the allottees for tea plantation under the Industrial Policy of 1995. He has taken a categorical stand in his representation that he had only submitted the report in respect of physical feature of the land on the orders of the higher authorities. Thereafter the file was processed at different levels and ultimately reached the Collector who passed final orders. In his reply, petitioner has also dealt with each of the three charges separately and has tried to meet the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of the same, the representation of the petitioner was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority and only with a vague observation, that after consideration of representation of the petitioner the same was not found satisfactory, the order terminating the services of the petitioner was passed. He also submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge as the role of the petitioner in the entire process was only confined to submission of a report as directed by the higher authorities.

(3.) After going through the representation of the petitioner in detail and the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority, this Court finds the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as correct. The impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority in no manner discloses that the facts and circumstances disclosed by the petitioner in his representation and his defence to the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of the charges were considered by him before he came to the conclusion that the same were not satisfactory.