ABDUL HALIM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar dated 6.8.99 awarding the punishment of stoppage of the annual increment for one year and censure to the petitioner. The petitioner has also been denied salary etc. except subsistence allowance for suspension period. He is a Staff Car Driver under the Finance Department.

(2.) THE short, facts of the case are that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 12.3.97 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The charge memo was issued on 12.3.97 and the proceeding followed in which the petitioner participated. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on or about 19.9.97, the impugned order was passed thereafter on 6.8.99. The solitary ground on which the petitioner has assailed the impugned order is that he was exonerated from the charges by the Enquiry Officer but disagreeing with the finding the impugned order was passed without giving further opportunity to show cause stating the grounds of disagreement.

(3.) THOUGH the charge memo runs into eight paragraphs, except paragraphs 2, 7 and 8 other paragraphs contain statement of facts which though relevant to the charge does not constitute the charge as such. As a matter of fact, paragraphs 2 and 8 also can broadly be clubbed as comprising one charge. Thus the charges levelled against the petitioner were two. The first charge described in paragraphs 2 and 8 is that after coming to know that instead of staff car bearing No. BHI 8305 another car bearing No. BPZ 3212 was to be handed over to him, he parked the staff car after creating defects, in the garage of M/s Gaisolin Service Station and informed the authorities that suspension steering, the four shockers, gear box, popular shaff and clutch dispenser were defective. The" petitioner was reportedly running four taxis: The aforementioned parts of the staff car were actually utilised in one of those taxis and replaced by defectives ones of that taxi. The other charge described in paragraph no. 7 was that four tyres and tubes had been supplied to the petitioner for use in staff Car No, BHI 8305 on 6.9.96 but he had not returned the old tyres and tubes to the store until enquiry was made on 24.2.97 indicative of his mala fide intention.