KUMAR AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of Bihar Administrative Service. He has filed this application for quashing entire disciplinary proceeding initiated against him under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and also for a direction to the respondents to allow him all consequential benefits including promotion with effect from the date juniors to the petitioner have been promoted.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as Executive Magistrate at Pakur and at that time he was asked to hold Additional Charge of Treasury Officer, Pakur. Subsequently he was transferred as Director Accounts Administration and self -employment of D.R.D.A. at Gopalganj. After his joining at Gopalganj by order dated 29.9.2000 he was put under suspension contemplating departmental proceeding. The allegation against the petitioner was that he violated Rule 130 of the Bihar Financial Rules and did not act with common prudence in the matter of processing the bills amounting to Rs. 3,24,964/ - submitted by Sub -Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, Pakur. Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of recommendation made by the Central Bureau of Investigation, while investigating the fodder scam cases. Subsequently C.B.I, did not submit chargesheet against the petitioner so far criminal offence are concerned, but mentioned that the petitioner is liable for departmental action.

(3.) PETITIONER 'scase is that he submitted his written statement on 21.8.2001 but it was returned to the petitioner by the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner stating that no departmental proceeding is pending and the written statement is no more required. Suspension of the petitioner was revoked by the department. Petitioner is aggrieved as again by letter dated 2.6.2005 he has been asked to submit his show cause, though he had already submitted his written statement before the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner on 21.8.2001 with a copy of it to the department. Petitioner 'scase is that he is not required to file any fresh written statement, in the given facts and circumstances of case, plea has been taken by the petitioner that a departmental proceeding initiated in the year 2000 should not continue for unlimited period and must be quashed specially when there exists no reasonable ground for continuation of such proceeding. Further it has been submitted that on account of continuation of this departmental proceeding for such a long period has been debarred from promotion though juniors to him have already been promoted.