UMESH DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 28.02.1996 passed by the Collector, as contained in Annexure -12, by which the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with on conclusion of a departmental enquiry and has also challenged the order of the Appellate Authority dated 04.03.1998, as contained in Annexure -15, dismissing his appeal.

(2.) THE short facts required to be noticed for the purpose of disposal of this case are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Clerk in the district Nazarat. In the inspection, some amount was found defalcated and he was put under suspension by order dated 4.9.1991 and was directed to deposit defalcated amount which he failed to do. Hence, some criminal and civil proceedings were initiated against him in court of law. Besides a departmental proceeding was also initiated against him. In the proceeding, charges were framed and served on the petitioner. It is his case that he kept on writing the authorities to supply him documents and papers so that he may be able to explain his conduct. However, the same were not supplied to him, which deprived him from opportunity of filing of proper show cause. The proceeding was finally concluded and the enquiry report was submitted on 16.2.1996, vide Annexure -A with the supplementary counter affidavit and the order of the dismissal was passed on 28.2.1996, vide Annexure -12.

(3.) LEARNED SC -III appears. He submits that the charges were served on the petitioner and he had knowledge of the enquiry. Still he did not participate and cooperate. For this, he refers to a document available at page 14 of the supplementary counter affidavit to submit that the petitioner was offered to spare time to inspect the relevant documents and records in connection with the charges in the Nazarat and upon his appearance arrangement was to made for his inspection of the documents and records which were seized by the police. Though petitioner received this letter, but he never cooperated and did not appear in the Nazarat to inspect the records. He submits that initially the petitioner had deposited Rs.4,000/ - (four thousand) with the respondents towards defalcated amount which shows that he had admitted the allegation of defalcation. Hence, it should be treated as his admission and writ application should be dismissed.