HARIDWARSINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing three annexures, namely, anne- xures-6, 12 and 13. By Annexure-6 the petitioner's prayer for payment of salary etc., for the period of his suspension (from 1-11-1972 to 19-7-1974) has been rejected by order dated 12-10-1974. By Annexure-12 the prayer of the petitioner for payment of salary etc. during the period of his compulsory retirement has been rejected by order dated 28-8-1990. By Annexure-13 a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner after a gap of about four years from the date of his retirement by order dated 30-1-1990. All the above orders have been passed by respondent No. 4 (Collector, Begusarai).

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as 'Karamchari' in the year 1945 in the Revenue Department by the Collector, Moughyr. In the year 1972 while he was posted as Karamchari at Lakhisarai he was put under suspension on 10-10-1972 vide Annexure-1 on the allegation that he granted receipt to one Kunj Bihari Singh without any authority. Thereafter, it appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and charged were served upon him vide Annexure-2. The petitioner submitted his explanation vide Annexure-3. In the meantime, District of Monghyr was bifurcated into the districts, namely, Monghyr and Begusarai and the petitioner's services were transferred to Begusarai district. There Sri S. J. David, Deputy Collectur was appointed as Enquiry Officer and after conclusion of the departmental proceeding he submitted enquiry report on 23-5-1974 vide Annexure-4. He did not find charges levelled against the petitioner to be true and exonerated him from the charges. The Collector, Begusarai (respondent No. 4) did not agree with the same and directed the Enquiry Officer to hold a fresh enquiry and thereafter he held a fresh enquiry and submitted bis report, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to this writ application According to the said report, the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges except charge No. 4 which was with regard to the absence of the petitioner from the duty without obtaining permission from the competent authority. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order as contained in Annexures-5/2 giving warning to the petitioner and further directing that the said fact be recorded in his character roll.

(3.) It further appears that is an appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of the Division he ordered for initiation of the fresh proceeding against the petitioner and in accordance with the said direction respondent No. 4 initiated a fresh departmental proceeding vide Annexure-7 on 20-5-1976 and Sri T. N. Mishra was appointed Enquiry Officer. While the proceeding was pending the petitioner was compulsorily retired by respondent No. 4 by an order dated 20-7-1976 vide Annexure-8. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Special Tribunal which was constituted to review the cases of compulsory retirement of the servant of the State Government and the Special Tribunal set aside the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner by order dated 24-11-1977 (vide Annexure-9). Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated and he functioned at different places and finally superannuated on 28-2-1987.