RAMNARESHPRASADSINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order, contained in memo No. 997 dated 12.7.95, passed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 2) as contained in annexure- 1, whereby the petitioner, has been released from suspension, but after an order imposing punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and further that he would not be entitled to draw any amount other than subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, which the petitioner has already received. It is also directed that a sum of Rs. 7,775/- be recovered from the salary of the petitioner, against the shortage of 303 L.P. 1trs. of country liquor from the country liquor ware house Muzaffarpur.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner, while posted as Sub-Inspector of Excise, incharge of the country liquor warehouse, Muzzafarpur, he was placed under suspension on some complaints made against him by different country sprit retail licensees as also on the special report in that regard submitted by Inspector of Excise, East Muzaffarpur with the recommendation of Superintendent of Excise, Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 3). Thereafter a charge report was prepared, which was served on him. vide memo No. 599 dated 24.4.95 of respondent No. 2 (annexure-3) and the petitioner was directed to submit his show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the same. It is stated that the petitioner received the charge on 3.5.95. Thereafter on 10.5.95 he wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Excise, Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 2) for supply of copies of the relevant papers, such as, the complaints filed by the licensees and the enquiry report submitted by the Inspector of Excise, East Muzaffarpur. The petitioner filed an application for leave for medical treatment of his wife at Madras on 31.5.95. It appears that certain documents were supplied to the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner claimed to have again written a letter on 1.6.95 to respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3 stating therein that whatever copy of the complaint had been supplied by respondent No. 3 had no relevancy ana also that the aforementioned special enquiry report had not been supplied to him ana thus, in absence of the documents it was difficult for him to file his show cause.