KASHI NATH JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 14.2.2001 (Annexure -1) imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment for two years and the decision dated 22.1.2002 (Annexure -C to the counter affidavit) whereby it has been decided that petitioner shall not be paid the salary for the period of suspension.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was posted as Gage Reader in the Irrigation Department of State Government. According to him, he filed application on 26.2.99 for grant of casual leave from 28th February, 1999 to 2nd of March, 1999 before the Junior Engineer of Irrigation Division, Birpur, where he was posted. His further plea is that his leave was sanctioned and the Junior Engineer by letter dated 27.2.1999 sent the leave application with his recommendation to the Subdivisional Officer of the Irrigation Subdivision. According to him, in the attendance register the Junior Engineer entered remark casual leave for the period 28.2.99 to 2.3.99. His further case is that on 27.2.99 petitioner signed the attendance register and went to perform his duties but on account of discomfort in his stomach and loose motion, he informed another Gage Reader to do his duties and the petitioner came to the head office. According to him on 28.2.99 he proceeded on casual leave and came back to his duties on 3.3.99. On 1.3.99 one Adalat Mahto was performing the duty of the Gage Reader and some cracked appeared in the main canal because of the excess water and the same was noticed by the Gage Reader on duty. When this fact came to the notice of the authority the Chief Engineer on 5.3.99 came to conduct the enquiry and by order dated 6.3.99 (Annexure -2) petitioner was put under suspension. According to the said order, petitioner was assigned the duty of the Gage Reader from 10 P.M. of 1.3.99 to 6 A.M. of 2.3.99 and on account of his absence, the water level was not monitored which resulted into the crack in the canal and immense problem to the farmers of the locality. Thereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated by order dated 9.3.99 and the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Division was appointed as the Conducting Officer and Technical Advisor to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Division as the Presenting Officer. By the said order petitioner was served with the memo of charges (Annexure -3/1). The Conducting Officer held enquiry, following the procedure provided under law and ultimately submitted the report holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. The Conducting Officer has found that although the petitioner had filed application for grant of leave for the period 28.2.99 to 2.3.99, but remained absent from 26.2.99. Petitioner was furnished with the copy of the enquiry report and he submitted his reply dated 15.1,2001. In his reply the petitioner has stated that he was paid the salary for the purported period of absence which clearly goes to show that the leave has been sanctioned. The disciplinary authority, however, in agreement with the report of the Conducting Officer held the petitioner guilty and passed the impugned order.

(3.) FROM the pleading of the parties, it is evident that the petitioner submitted application for grant of casual leave for the period 28.2.99 to 2.3.99 to the Junior Engineer, who is not competent authority to grant leave, and even without its sanction, he proceeded on leave. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner was paid salary for the period 28.2.99 to 2.3.99 but later on the same has been directed to be recovered. Further the application for grant of casual leave was ultimately rejected.