GHANSHAYAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.9.1998 passed by the Collector, Nawada, substance of which is said to have been communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 196 dated 15.10.1998 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Nawada. The said communication is based on the order of the District Magistrate ( Respondent No. 3), whereby following punishments have been imposed against the petitioner:

(2.) From the pleadings in the writ application, it appears that while posted as Panchyat Sewak, Rajauli Sub Divisional Headquarters, the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of initiation of a departmental proceeding, vide an order issued vide memo No. 139 dated 18.3.1997 (Annexure-1) containing allegation to the effect that he was transferred from the post of Panchayat Sevak, Paroria Gram Panchayat vide memo No. 391 dated 3.8.1996 with a direction to join the District Panchayati Raj Office, Nawada and was subsequently relieved from Sirdalla block on 8.8.1996 itself but he disobeyed the transfer order and did not join. Subsequently, the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally with issuance of charge-sheet as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application dated 8.7. 1997. In the said charge-sheet, two charges were levelled against the petitioner. The first related to dis-obedience of the order of transfer as noted above. In the second charge, there is an allegation that the petitioner had received as advance of Rs. 1, 12, 350/- for construction of building of Primary School, Paroria( Scheme No. 8/1994-95). As per the measurement, total work done was worth Rs. 60, 930/- only. Rest amount, as per the charge-sheet was still lying with the petitioner and as per the charge, he utilized the rest amount for the individual purpose and thus misappropriated the money advanced to him. The petitioner submitted his show cause reply against charges framed against him. As regards charge No. 1, petitioner explained that the Additional Collector, Nawada vide order No. 1158 dated 26.10.1996 asked the petitioner not to hand over the charge unless further orders were received from the Collector, Nawada. The plea of the petitioner is that he was under obligation to abide by the order of his superior under whom he was working and who also was aware of the transfer order.

(3.) As regards the second charge, the petitioner denying it in his reply to the show cause submitted that he had not misappropriated any amount and materials which had been procured after receiving belated advance deteriorated/persisted and because of the petitioner's transfer the materials could not be utilized.