HARISH CHANDRA JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.1989 passed by the Collector, Samastipur, by which, pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and further there was order that in respect of period of suspension he would not be paid anything except the subsistence allowance. This was not interfered with in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhnaga. There is a counter affidavit on record.

(2.) The petitioner was a Revenue Karmchari and apparently he was entrusted with work of supervising the construction of 15 units of Harijan Houses. It appears that an inspection was conducted by the S.D.O. and others and they found some defects in the construction. The matter was reported to the Collector. The Collector, on receipt of the report, suspended the petitioner. Petitioner was put under suspension by order dated 22.3.1984. In the departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer enquired into the matter and submitted his report dated 13.6.1988, clearly finding that the petitioner was not guilty of any charge as levelled against him. The enquiry report is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Notwithstanding the submission of the enquiry report in the year 1988 itself, it may be noticed here that on 22.10.1986 itself, during pendency of the enquiry, petitioner s suspension order was revoked. The enquiry report having been submitted, as aforesaid, the Collector straightway disagreed with the enquiry report by the impugned order dated 8.2.1989 holding the petitioner guilty of defective construction passed the punishment order as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the whole procedure as followed was against law. He submits that petitioner was mere Karamchari. He was neither an Engineer nor a technical man. He had only to supervise the work, which had earlier been partly done not to the satisfaction of the authorities, as such, the blame could not been put on him. In any view of the matter, he submits that once the Inquiry Officer had enquired into the matter and completely exonerated the petitioner then, if the Disciplinary Authority wanted to disagree with the Inquiry Officer, he was required to disclose his reasons and after communicating the enquiry report issue notice to the petitioner in that regards. He was, then, to proceed in the matter. In the present case, he did nothing like that. Having to disagree with the enquiry report, he proceeded straightway to punish the petitioner. That is impermissible.