NAND KISHORE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Patna Division, discharging the present petitioner from Government service and the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dismissing the petition of revision, which the petitioner had filed as against the above order of discharge. The petitioner hag further prayed for issue of a Mandamus for his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.

(2.) It is admitted that the petitioner was formerly employed as a bench clerk in the Court of Shri R. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram and while he was thus employed, one G. R. Case No. 886C/104 T. R. of 1950, State v. Sarju Choubey, was tried in this Court and 12 accused persons in this case were convicted and sentenced to pay different amounts of fine, as per order passed on 26-4-1950, There was an appeal against this order but the appeal was dismissed. In spite of dismissal of the appeal, however, a wrong entry was made in the fines register by one Triloki Prasad Sinha, the then Fines clerk, about the above fines having been remitted by the order of the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1950. Subsequently, as the fine record of the case was not available, the record was reconstructed and notices were issued to all the accused persons to show cause why the amounts of fine money should not be realised. On this, all of them asserted that they had already deposited the total fine amount of Rs. 1081/12 with the Sub-Inspector of Police. Kargahar, on 22-8-1950 On enquiry from the Sub-Inspector of Police. Kargahar, it was reported by him that the said amount had actually been received from the accused persons at the police station and had been remitted by him by money orders to the aforesaid Magistrate on 4-9-1950 The Sub-Inspector of Police further produced the money order acknowledgment receipts in support of this contention and the acknowledgment receipts purported to show that the amounts had been received on 8-9-1950 by the present petitioner, who was the bench clerk of the aforesaid Magistrate at that time. It was further found that the amounts had not been credited to the Government accounts. The petitioner denied his signature on the acknowledgment receipts and also denied about having received the money. The Fines Clerk, Triloki Prasad Sinha, alleged that the above entry in the Fine Register as to the result of the appeal had been made by him on the basis of a memo of the result of appeal supplied to him by the present petitioner, who was then in charge of the fine records of the Court of Shri R. Singh. The petitioner, on the other hand, alleged that the fine record used to be maintained by the fines clerk Triloki Prasad Sinha. The Magistrate in charge of fines, Sasaram, thereafter, filed a report for prosecution of both the petitioner and Triloki Prasad Sinha for offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 466, 468, 474 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. A prosecution was lodged against both the persons but it transpires that both of them were discharged under Section 207 (A) (6) as per order passed by Shri A.K. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sasaram, on 27-2-1956. Departmental proceedings were thereafter started separately against both the present petitioner and the fines clerk, Triloki Prasad Sinha.

(3.) In the departmental proceedings against the present petitioner, the enquiry was conducted by the Subdivisional Officer, Sasaram, who submitted a report on 28-2-1960 after concluding the enquiry. On a consideration of this report and the relevant materials, the District Magistrate passed an order on 19-3-1960 dropping the above proceedings. A notice was thereafter issued by the Commissioner of Patna Division calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service on basis of the charges against him and after considering the show cause petition filed by the petitioner, the learned Commissioner passed an order discharging the present petitioner from service, as mentioned above. The petition of revision filed by the petitioner against this order has been dismissed by the Member of Board of Revenue.