STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SITA RAM YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay of 97 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th December, 2012 made by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 19690 of 2012, the respondent State of Bihar has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) The respondent-writ petitioner, a Block Development Officer at Pandaul, Madhubani, was alleged to have committed certain financial irregularity in distribution of funds for the Indira Awas Project amongst the flood affected people below the poverty line. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner on 10th February, 2007. Under the memorandum of charge it was alleged that in 2004 the petitioner, then the Block Development Officer, had been allocated a sum of Rs. 2,37,50,000/- for distribution under the Indira Awas Project to the families living in eleven flood ravaged panchayats. The petitioner, however, made distribution of the funds amongst 950 beneficiaries in 26 panchayats. The writ petitioner thus diverted the funds meant for 11 panchayats to the 15 panchayats which were not covered under the Project. The petitioner was thus alleged to have committed a gross financial irregularity. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 21st June, 2010. He did not record a clear finding of guilt in respect of any of the eight charges framed against the petitioner; although he did find that the funds were diverted to the beneficiaries who were not entitled to the said benefit. The enquiry officer also found that the proposal made by the writ petitioner was also approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as by the District Magistrate although they should not have approved such proposal. He did record that it was a case of financial irregularity committed equally by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate. The writ petitioner had not committed the said irregularity for personal gain. Pursuant to the said report made by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, under his order dated 28th July, 2011 imposed the punishment of 'censure' and of 'withholding of three increments without cumulative effect' upon the writ petitioner. The petitioner preferred a review petition before the State Government. The same came to be rejected under Resolution dated 22nd February, 2012.