BRIJ BIHARI SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the ground that an Officer junior to the appellant has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the appellant, a round of battle ensued in between the appellant and the employer Corporation in this Court, which was decided against the appellant. Subsequent thereto, the appellant pressed the self -same writ petition challenging the whole enquiry proceedings including the suspension order, the charge -sheets and the enquiry report. The principal ground of challenge was that the decision to suspend and charge -sheet the appellant was at the instance of the State of Bihar and, therefore, not an independent decision of the employer Corporation. During the pendency of the writ petition, the order of dismissal came, which also formed part of the challenge in the writ petition. The writ petition having been dismissed by the order under appeal, the appellant is before us.

(2.) THE short facts of this case are that the employer Corporation received a letter of the Government dated 20th March, 1993 whereby the Corporation was asked to suspend the appellant and initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. On this letter, an order was recorded by the then Managing Director of the Corporation for taking steps to suspend the appellant and also to initiate a disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge -sheet. In consequence thereof while on 23rd March, 1993 the appellant was put under suspension, a charge -sheet was issued against him whereby and under the appellant was asked to give his answers to the charges levelled against him to the Conducting Officer, who had been appointed as such by the charge -sheet itself, in the charge -sheet it was alleged, amongst others, that the appellant recommended release of a sum of Rs. 4.33 lacs to Koshi Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd., one of the customers of the Corporation, without deducting the stipulated promoters margin money. It was also alleged that without authority he released a sum of Rs. 7.80 lacs to the selfsame customer. It was next alleged that while releasing Rs. 7.80 lacs he also did not retain the retention money. It was stated that the doubt expressed by the Vigilance and Grievance Cell as regards the reputation and competence of the machine supplier was suppressed and advances were made without inspecting the manufacturing unit of the machine supplier. In addition to that there were other charges pertaining to receipt of payment of car allowance without having a car and purchase of land showing himself as having two different professions. This charge -sheet was followed by yet another charge -sheet dated 26th April, 1993. whereby it was alleged that a recommendation was given by the appellant to a proposal to finance another customer of the Corporation without verifying the addresses of the promoters of the said customer and, later on, it was found that the addresses were fake, in consequence whereof, the monies advanced to the said customer were lost. Lastly, on 30th June, 1993 the last charge -sheet was issued whereby it was alleged that although a customer of the Corporation was running its unit in a rented premises and not on the property mortgaged to the Corporation, but the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Corporation by the appellant which resulted in loss of the money advanced to the said customer.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the appellant was heard by the Enquiry Officer. It does not appear that before the Enquiry Officer the Presenting Officer presented the case and then the appellant defended the same. On the contrary, it appears that the Enquiry Officer heard the appellant and looked into the file referred to by the appellant in his reply to the first charge -sheet and thereupon expressed his opinion in his enquiry report on the basis of what he found in the file.