HEM CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) DURING the hearing of this writ application, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the original Notification dismissing the Petitioner dated, 15.01.1999, Annexure -1 to this application as also the subsequent proposal of the Co -operative Department, as contained in memorandum dated, 25.01.2005, Annexure -B to the supplementary counter affidavit and the decision of the State Cabinet dated, 25.02.2005 to reject the appeal as communicated to the Co -operative Department by the Cabinet Secretariat under Annexure -C to the said supplementary counter affidavit. He also assails the communication dated, 18.03.2005, Annexure -6, whereunder rejection of the appeal by the State Cabinet in its meeting dated, 25.02.2005 has been communicated to the Governor Secretariat.

(3.) , 8 and 9 have been proved as would appear from the enquiry report dated, 19.11.1996. In this connection, he pointed out that ample opportunity to rebut the charges with reference to the various documents was not provided to the Petitioner as documents called for by the Petitioner under his Letter No. 115 dated, 21.09.1996 were not furnished to him in spite of clear direction of the Enquiry Officer to produce those letter/documents before him on the next date fixed in the enquiry i.e. 14.10.1996 so that the Departmental proceeding may be concluded within the time frame fixed by the High Court. Appreciating the fact that the documents were not furnished as was directed to be furnished by the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report itself at the top observed that copy of most of the documents were given to the Petitioner and the remaining documents like the Appointment Order of the Administrator of the superseded Co -operative Societies as also the file with regard to the registration of the Co -operative Societies was shown to him at the time of hearing. In this connection, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, with reference to the said observation of the Enquiry Officer, submitted that the Enquiry Officer did not enumerate the documents, which could not be shown to the Petitioner. He further submitted that even the relevancy of those documents, which could not be shown to the Petitioner, was not considered by the Enquiry Officer and with reference to the said omission on the part of the Enquiry Officer, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself. He further pointed out, with reference to the findings of the Enquiry Officer as regards Charge No. 1 (Ka) and 3(Ka) that loan to the tune of Rupees one crore was advanced to the different Co -operative Societies on the basis of the facts and figures mentioned in the loan application, which was submitted under the signature of the Manager/Chairman of the Society concerned, which signature was even certified by the concerned Block Co -operative Extension Officer. The Enquiry Officer, while holding the Petitioner guilty of the aforesaid two charges, has taken the view that certificate granted by the Block Co -operative Extension Officer about the genuineness of the signature of the Manager/Chairman of the Society concerned, cannot be taken as the recommendation of the Block Co -operative Extension Officer for grant of loan and the Petitioner cannot be absolved of the two charges, if he has misconstrued the certificate granted by the Block Co -operative Extension Officer as his recommendation for grant of loan. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as regards Charge No. 4, submitted that Petitioner diverted the amount of Rs. 61 lacs out of the cash credit limit of Rs. 1,70,97,000.00 without the permission of the competent Authority, as the said amount was required to ensure the depositors/creditors of the bank who wanted to withdraw the amount from their personal account were paid the required amount, the moment they presented their demand/cheque, failing which reputation of the bank would have been tarnished. In the aforesaid background, it was submitted that the diversion of the cash credit amount for paying the depositors/creditors of the bank was for ensuring the reputation of the bank and should not be taken as misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. As regards the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to Charge No. 8, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that the Petitioner was paying house rent in the District Board Dakbunglow at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month but has drawn house rent allowance at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month and he could be directed to deposit the excess house rent amount of Rs. 100.00 per month in the State Treasury, which the Petitioner was and is always willing to deposit the same. As regards Charge No. 9, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that two fruit and vegetable producer co -operative Societies were registered without the approval of the Registrar of the Co -operative Society as also without deposit of the share money on the verbal Orders of the District Magistrate as a special case but without any ill -motive and those Societies can always be directed to deposit the share money. 4. With reference to the aforesaid findings, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer has not found the Petitioner guilty of any financial misconduct. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Petitioner is only guilty of having accepted the certificate of the Block Co -operative Extension Officer granted over the loan application filed by the Manager/Chairman of the different primary Co -operative Societies certifying the signature as his recommendation for grant of loan. In this connection, he further submitted that once the Block Co - operative Extension Officer had certified the signature, that obviously means that the other contents of the loan application form were also duly certified by him. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter was highlighted by the Petitioner in his second show cause reply and he also desired to personally explain the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter to the Departmental Secretary in course of hearing of his second show cause reply, but such opportunity was not granted to him by the Secretary, as he turned him out of his official chamber, which fact is duly mentioned by the Petitioner in his representation dated, 12.06.1998 addressed to the Secretary of the Department to re -open the proceedings, which is available at page 258 of the Departmental file, which this Court had called for, for perusal and ignoring such plea of the Petitioner, co -operative Department submitted memorandum, bearing Memo. No. 4197 dated, 1.12.1998 proposing dismissal of the Petitioner, which was approved by the State Cabinet in its meeting dated, 21.12.1998, vide Agenda No. 15, which was communicated to the Co - operative Department by the Special Secretary of the Cabinet Secretariat, vide communication of the Departmental file and thereafter, the Notification dated, 15.01.1999, Annexure -1 to this application dismissing the Petitioner was issued.