DASHRATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed second supplementary affidavit whereunder he has stated that no action whatsoever has been taken against the Block Development Officer under whom petitioner served as a Nazir in Aurangabad Block. Let the said second supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(3.) Petitioner who served as a Nazir in Aurangabad Block has filed this writ application challenging the order bearing Memo No. 546 dated 14.10.1992, Annexure-10 whereunder he has been dismissed from service. He has further assailed the order bearing Memo No. 964 dated 21.6.1995, Annexure-11 whereunder the appeal filed against the dismissal order dated 14.10.1992 has also been dismissed. The aforesaid two orders were assailed before the Member, Board of Revenue Bihar Patna by filing appeal on 20.9.1995 against the aforesaid two orders. While the said appeal before the Board of Revenue remained pending the petitioner and others were acquitted in the criminal case referred to in the suspension order dated 11.10.1984, Annexure-1, vide judgment dated 19.1.1998, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 112/93/49/95, Annexure-14. Emboldened by his acquittal alongwith others in the criminal case, petitioner filed the present writ application praying, inter alia, to set aside the aforesaid dismissal order dated 14.10.1992, Annexure-10 and appellate order dated 21.6.1995, Annexure-11 which were already impugned before the Member, Board of Revenue in the aforesaid appeal even when the said appeal remained pending. It appears that the petitioner was placed under suspension under order bearing Memo No. 1883 dated 11.10.1984, Annexure-1 on the allegation that he was involved in a criminal case lodged for defalcation of a sum of Rs. 65,500/- and all those who were involved in the said defalcation, were placed under suspension until pendency of the criminal case. During the suspension period of the petitioner and others a departmental proceeding was also initiated against them and memo of charge bearing Memo No. 157 dated 29.4.1986, Annexure 2 was served calling upon them to submit his written defence before the Enquiry Officer. It further appears that the petitioner in compliance of the instructions contained in the order serving the memo of charge date 29.4.1986 submitted his written defence before the Enquiry Officer asserting therein that no defalcation was done at his instance as whatever amount was distributed to the beneficiaries the same was done under the instruction of the Block Development Officer who signed every orders and only on his direction the amount was distributed amongst the beneficiaries. The Enquiry Officer examined the explanation given by the petitioner and submitted his report dated 30.1.1988, Annexure 3 holding that the petitioner was not guilty of the charge levelled against him. Another report dated 4.5.1988 was also submitted holding that the petitioner was not involved in defalcation of the amount of Rs. 65,500/-. The authorities considered the two enquiry reports and disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed the petitioner from service. Petitioner thereafter approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3 of 1992 which was considered and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court under orders dated 6.2.1992, Annexure-7. Perusal of the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6.2.1992, Annexure-7 would indicate that the dismissal order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority with a direction to serve another notice indicating the reasons of difference with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer with opportunity to the petitioner to support the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and in the event disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner in support of the findings of the Enquiry Officer then to issue second show cause notice proposing the punishment. In compliance of the order of this Court the authorities issued notice dated 15.6.1992, Annexure-8, perusal whereof indicates that thereunder they recorded reasons of difference and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Petitioner in response to the aforesaid notice submitted his second show cause reply dated 29.6.1992, Annexure-9 and thereunder once again petitioner justified the reasons recorded by the two Enquiry Officers in their reports dated 31.1.1988 and 4.5.1988, Annexures-3 and 5 and further submitted that whatever amount was distributed it was distributed under the instruction of the Block Development Officer whose orders the petitioner was obliged to follow and that being the position, no action was called for against the petitioner as according to him the amount of Rs. 65,500/-was distributed amongst the beneficiaries of the scheme and the same was not defalcated. The disciplinary authority considered the show cause reply of the petitioner and passed order dated 14.10.1992 whereunder it appears that the Enquiry Officer again reiterated the reasons of difference which was contained in the earlier notice dated 15.6.1992, Annexure-8 and it was further held that the petitioner had defalcated the aforesaid amount of Rs. 65,500/- in collusion with the Block Development Officer vide paragraph 4 of the order dated 14.10.1992, Annexure-10. Having held as above the disciplinary authority further held that the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner dated 29.6.1992 is not satisfactory. In support of the findings that the show cause reply is not satisfactory the disciplinary authority has not enumerated any reasons.