BOUDHU THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Panchayat Sewak of Salkhua Panchayat of Rohtas District. He was allotted some scheme and for its execution advance was given to him but the work could not be completed and as such a proceeding was initiated against him, the charges were framed and served on him, he filed show cause in his defence, the enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority that the charges were not established, Annexure -3 series. However, the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the enquiry report ordered a fresh enquiry, the fresh enquiry was started and the petitioner participated in the same, the enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority holding that Rs. 30,000/ - is recoverable from the petitioner, Annexure4, the disciplinary authority passed order contained in letter dated 25th of July, 1994 holding that Rs. 70,372/ - is recoverable from the petitioner and directed him to deposit 50% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 35,186/ - in one lump sum and rest in 20 monthly equal instalments with a further stipulation that at the time of vacating the suspension, order of punishment shall be passed, Annexure -5, subsequently, the suspension was vacated and punishment order was passed stopping two annual increments with cumulative effect, censure, for the period of suspension nothing shall be paid to the petitioner except the subsistence allowance vide order dated 21.12.1997, Annexure -7, the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, Koshi Division Saharsa which was rejected with a direction to the District Panchayat Officer to calculate interest over the due amount from the date of advance given to the petitioner till the date of recovery and initiate a proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act for recovery of the said amount of interest, Annexure 11. The petitioner has challenged Annexures 5, 7 and 11 in this writ petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein stand has been taken that for the misconduct of the petitioner, the proceeding was initiated in which he was found guilty and as such Rs. 70,372/ - was ordered to be recovered. The other punishment order was passed at the time of vacating the suspension order, as indicated above, and the appellate authority has also rejected the appeal of the petitioner with a further direction to realise interest over the amount advanced to the petitioner from the date of advance given to him till the date of its recovery by initiating a proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act. In nutshell the stand of the respondents is that since the petitioner has committed misconduct, the orders of punishment are correct.

(3.) ON consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and the material available on the records this much is obvious that in the enquiry only Rs. 30,000/ - was found to be recoverable from the petitioner but the disciplinary authority without assigning any reason of difference with the enquiry report and without notice to the petitioner recovered Rs. 70,372/ -. The petitioner was also awarded punishment at the time of vacating the order of suspension i.e. censure and stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and that he will not be paid anything except the subsistence allowance.