SUJIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

(3.) The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed and at the relevant time was working as Revenue Karamchari (Rajasva Karamchari) at Chhatapur Block. Vide Letter No.308-2, dtd. 28/6/2009, a large number of Rajasva Karamchari were transferred from one place to another, including the petitioner, who was transferred from Chhatapur to Raghopur. All the transferred persons were directed to join the new place of posting by 30/6/2009, and in compliance thereof, the petitioner joined at Raghopur Block on 8/7/2009. While the petitioner was working as a Revenue Karamchari (Rajasva Karamchari) under Chhatapur Block, illegal distribution of flood relief work was undertaken and therefore, the petitioner was shifted to Raghopur Block by the order of the competent authority. A three men enquiry committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Additional Collector to enquire into the distribution of relief materials during the flood in 2008. The committee, after its enquiry, submitted its report, however it is the case of the petitioner that nothing specific was found against the petitioner. Subsequently, a high level committee was constituted of senior I.A.S. officials. The committee found serious lapses on the part of the Circle Officer, the Circle Inspector, the Anchal Nazir and the Head Assistant, however nothing was found against the petitioner. The committee submitted its report vide Letter No.224, dtd. 19/1/2010, before the Principal Secretary, Department of Disaster Management, Government of Bihar, Patna. Pursuant thereto, vide Memo No.41-2, dtd. 18/1/2010, issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Supaul, the petitioner along with one Ram Jee Prasad Mandal was put under suspension and his Headquarter was fixed at Circle Office, Marona. Subsequently, vide Letter No.481, dtd. 16/3/2011, issued under the signature of the Sub-divisional Officer, Triveniganj, Supaul, memo of charge was issued against the petitioner, wherein certain charges were levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer and the presenting officer were appointed and the enquiry officer vide his Memo No.870-2, dtd. 31/7/2011, directed the petitioner to appear on 16/8/2011 along with his reply to the show-cause. It is the case of the petitioner that, although memo of charge was issued on 16/3/2011, but the same was not served upon the petitioner. The same was ultimately served upon the petitioner on 16/8/2011, after initiation of the departmental proceeding when, he made a complaint before the enquiry officer, with regard to non-supply of the memo of charge. Upon the directions given by the enquiry officer to the Circle Officer, Chhatapur-cum-Presenting Officer, the same was finally served. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo on 22/8/2011, in absence of the supporting documents upon which the charge was said to have been issued. During course of the enquiry before the enquiry officer, the presenting officer submitted Memo No.822-2, dtd. 29/11/2011, wherein he stated that he is satisfied with the explanation/reply submitted by the petitioner and some others and he forwarded the explanation/reply submitted by the petitioner and others, to the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report before the disciplinary authority, whereby he found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. The disciplinary authority vide his letter contained in Memo No.183-2, dtd. 10/2/2012, directed the petitioner to file his second show-cause reply, however it is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry report was not served to the petitioner, either by the enquiry officer or along with the second show-cause notice. He obtained the said enquiry report through his Advocate, at the time of filing his statutory appeal. The petitioner immediately thereafter filed his reply to the second show-cause notice issued to him, wherein he denied all the charges levelled against him and also requested for exonerating the petitioner from the charged levelled against him. The disciplinary authority, i.e., the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Supaul vide his order contained in Memo No.544-2, dtd. 23/3/2012, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service from the date of issuance of the order and further directed the Circle Officer, Chhatapur to take steps for recovery of the amount defalcated by the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dtd. 23/3/2012, passed by the disciplinary authority, proceeded to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority, however the appellate authority, i.e., the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa by his impugned order dtd. 23/2/2013, rejected the appeal of the petitioner stating therein that, since the matter is sub-judice before the Vigilance, therefore, it would not be appropriate to take any action in the matter and he did not find any error with the report of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Supaul.