SHOBHA KANT SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the extreme punishment of dismissal given to him as per order of the Director (Agriculture), Bihar being dated 8th August, 2006 as contained in Annexure-6. Shri Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order cannot be sustained inasmuch as neither petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself before the enquiry officer or even at the stage of second show cause. Counter affidavit being on record, with consent of parties, this writ petition has been heard for being disposed of at this stage itself.

(2.) Apart from others, the gravamen of charge against the petitioner appears to be interpolation of a Government cheque of the value of Rs. 12,042/- and made it to be Rs. 2,12,042/- and encashed the same. Petitioner contends that in the departmental proceedings, in spite of several requests, the said cheque, on which interpolation was alleged to have been made by the petitioner, was never brought on record. Petitioner's defence was that the cheque was duly issued for an amount of Rs. 2,12,042/- and there was no interpolation. The official issuing the cheque has inflated the cheque himself, one of the defence he had taken. The enquiry officer noted various aspects of the matter and without getting records produced or brought on record of the proceedings gave his report. To say the least, the report is not at all satisfactory inasmuch as for this major charge, he has refused to give any finding on the ground that a criminal case is pending on the same matter and the matter being subjudiced, he would not give a finding. In spite of that, the disciplinary authority then issued a second show cause to him dated 15.7.2006, as contained in Annexure-4. In the second show cause, it is written that the enquiry officer had not exonerated the petitioner which is far from truth. The enquiry officer had refused to give a finding either way and then to say that he had not exonerated the petitioner is imputing something which is not there. In the second show cause, it is said that upon available records, it is found established that petitioner committed the defalcation by interpolation of cheque. Nothing is discussed as to what the record is, what are the facts, what are the evidences and what were the defence and defence not acceptable and how the Department able to bring on record the facts to establish the charge.

(3.) The second show cause is issued with a purpose. It has to indicate divergence of views of the disciplinary authority and disclosure of material so that the delinquent may have an opportunity to satisfy the disciplinary authority where he is an authority different from the enquiry officer that he is innocent. Thus, the second show cause has to contain the basic facts as well especially when the view of the enquiry officer is not being accepted. In the present case, as noted above, the enquiry officer refuses to give any finding. The disciplinary authority holds petitioner guilty. Petitioner is surely entitled to disclosure of material on which this opinion is formed.