SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the petitioner was working as Comparing Clerk in the Office of the Coffectorate at Purhia, a charge -sheet was issued against him.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that as Comparing Clerk it was the duty of the petitioner to compare the copy or copies made by the Typist of the original and to ensure correctness thereof. These copies were prepared for the purpose of delivering certified qopies of the originals in the custody of the Collectorate. In order to facilitate issuance of certified copies of the originals in the custody of the Collectorate, certain Technical Rules have been frarmed. In terms thereof the person seeking the certified copy is required to make an application for the certified copy indicating his name as also the document of which certified copy has been applied for. Such an application is first dealt with by the Deputy Collector, After the Deputy Collector is satisfied that the application has been made in terms of the norms prescribed therefor, it is the duty of the Deputy Collector to send the application to the keeper of the original records. It thereupon becomes the obligation of the keeper of the original records to trace out the concerned record and thereupon to handover the same to the Typist for the purpose of making copy or copies thereof as has been applied for, After the Typist makes the copy or copies of such original record the original record as well as the copy pr copies thereof, as has been prepared by the typist are placed before the Comparing Clerk when it becomes the duty of the Comparing Clerk to verify whether the Typist has correctly copied the original record in the copy or copies prepared by him. Thereupon such compared copy or copies is/are placed before the appropriate authority, namely, the Deputy Collector or the Additional Collector or any other officer, who has been authorized, for the purpose of certifying that the copy or copies so made is/are the true and correct copy or copies of the original in the custody of the Collectorate.

(3.) THE petitioner gave a reply to the charge -sheet. Therein he pointed out that he was not attached to the office when the alleged interpolation was made. He stated that it was his duty to compare the original, as stood, and the copies thereof, as made, and nothing more than that. He also contended that he could not express any opinion even for himself as to whether any manipulation has been made in the original and, accordingly had no authority to make any aspersions in relation to the matters recorded in the original records.