AWADH NANDAN PRASAD Vs. COMMISSIONER CHOTANAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ application has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7-6-1984 (Annexure-8) passed by the Respondent-Deputy Commissioner by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service pursuant to departmental enquiry as also the appellate order dated 1-4-1991 (Annexure-12) passed by the Respondent-Commissioner, Chotangapur Division, whereby he has affirmed the said punishment.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ application may be stated in short: the petitioner who was a Panchayat Sewak and during the material time i.e. 1970-71 he was posted at Udnabad Panchayat in Giridih block. By an order dated 11-12-1975 the petitioner was placed under suspension and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on various charges including of misconduct. THE then Deputy Collector, Land Reforms was appointed as the Enquiring Officer, who, after completion of the enquiry submitted his enquiry report. But according to the petitioner, instead of. taking any action on that enquiry report, the matter was kept in abeyance for a long time and then he was served with another charge-sheet dated 19-3-1981 (Annexure-3) issued by the Respondent-Deputy Commissioner whereby a second enquiry was entrusted to Shri Madan Mohan Prasad, Deputy Collector, Giridih. THE Enquiring Officer after considering the explanation offerred by the petitioner, submitted his report dated 4-5-1982 (Annexure-15). Consequent upon the said enquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 1-6-1982 (Annexure-4) found the petitioner to be guilty of the charges levelled against him and, accordingly, awarded a punishment of compulsory retirement from the date of his suspension and also directed for recovery of the entire subsistence allowance from the petitioner which was paid to him during the period of suspension. THE petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and the appellate authority remanded the case to the disciplinary authority because no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before inflicting the punishment. Pursuant to the appellate order, the learned Deputy Commissioner then issued a notice dated 24-2-1984 (Annexure-6) to the petitioner after setting out charges against him and requiring him to show cause as to why keeping in view the seriousness of the charges levelled against him, he should not be dismissed from service. THEreafter, after giving due consideration to the show-cause filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 7-6-1984 (Annexure-8).

(3.) THE Respondent have filed a counter affidavit in this case wherein it has been stated that the second enquiry was necessitated because of the fact that after the report of the first enquiry was received by the Deputy Commissioner, ha, on applying himself to the said report, nature of the charge, explanations offered by the petitioner and the material available on the record, had prima facie formed an opinion to dismiss the petition and, accordingly, the file was sent to the office for issuing necessary orders in this regard. But before the said order could be issued, the file mischievously traceless. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, he entrusted the enquiry in this regard to the Deputy Development Commissioner. Pursuant to the enquiry held in that regard, it revealed that the tile was possibly made traceless at the instance of the petitioner and, therefore, the then head clerk of the Zila Panchayati Raj Office, who was primarily responsible for maintaining the file, was punished. It was under these circumstances that a second enquiry had to be conducted. THEse facts, which are borne out from the statements made in the counter affidavit and the copies of the order-sheets filed therewith as Annexures, have not been controverted or disputed by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder.