SURESH PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, originally the prayer of the petitioner was to quash the memo dated 25-8-2001 (Annexure 7) whereby memo of charge was served in a departmental proceeding. However, during the pendency of the writ application, by order date 31-8-2001 (Annexure 13), petitioner has been visited with the penalty of dismissal from service and by way of amendment, his prayer is to quash the said order also.

(2.) Short facts giving rise to the present application are that by memo dated 17-7-2001, petitioner was informed that the Committee appointed to find out the irregularities in Store Section, has found that from the year 1990 to 1993-94, many registers are not available and in the opinion of the committee, same have been removed by the petitioner under a conspiracy to conceal the pecuniary gain. In the aforesaid premises, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why a disciplinary proceeding be not initiated against him. By another memo of the same day (Annexure 3), petitioner was informed that the Inquiry Committee on physical verification had found any discrepancies in the stock and interpolations in the Stock register. Petitioner was asked to show cause as to why disciplinary proceeding be not initiated against him for the irregularity and forgery in the records of the store.

(3.) Petitioner submitted his reply dated 26-7-2001. By order dated 23rd of August, 2001 (Annexure 5), petitioner was found prima facie guilty of not maintaining the stock register during his posting in Store Section and other irregularities and was put under suspensions. By memo dated 24th of August, 2001 and 25th of August 2001 (Annexure 6 and 7) the petitioner was served with the memo of charges containing the same allegations for which earlier explanation was sought for him and asked to submit explanation by 11 a.m. of 27-8-2001 as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him. By order dated 24-8-2001, the Deputy Secretary (Legal/ Establishment) was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. On receipt of the memos of charges dated 24-8-2001 and 25-8-2001, petitioner asked for relevant documents. By letter dated 27-2-2001 (Annexure 11), petitioner was informed that he can meet the Section Officer during the office hours for making inspection of the relevant documents. At the same time, he was informed that explanation be submitted by 11 a.m. of 30-8-2001 and, in case, no explanation is submitted, it shall be presumed that the petitioner has nothing to say in relation to the charges. According to the petitioner, he went to make inspection of the documents where he was told to see whatever register he desires to see. According to him, as he did not know as to in which register he had made interpolations, by letter dated 30-8-2001, he requested for deputation of a competent person to make available the relevant register. In the meanwhile, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 30-8-2001 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The report of the Inquiry Officer was placed for consideration before the disciplinary authority and finding that the petitioner is to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 -8-2001, it was observed that second show cause notice is not feasible to be given and the disciplinary authority by order dated 31-8-2001 passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service.