QAMRUL HODA Vs. BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Corporation.

(2.) Petitioner is a retired clerk who was under employment of Bihar Road Transport Corporation. At the relevant time it is stated that he was the custodian of the service records of one Parmeshwar Prasad an ex-artisan working under Patna Division. Petitioner was posted under Patna Division and thereafter it is stated that he discovered certain interpolation in the service record of said Parmeshwar Prasad. According to petitioner he forwarded this information to the Divisional Manager and brought it to his notice on 1.11.1980. On 10.11.81 the relevant record was called for by the Divisional Manager, but nothing, as such, thereafter seems to have been happened for a couple of years. A show cause was however issued to Parmeshwar Prasad for certification of his correct date of birth. No final decision was however taken at any level. In 1987 petitioner was transferred to Bhagalpur Division and he handed over charge to one Vishnukant Jha. It seems that based on the interpolation in the service records the said Parmeshwar Prasad instead of retiring in March, 1987 continued to work under the respondent till the year, 1992. The respondent finally woke up to the situation and decided to fix responsibility.

(3.) A chargesheet was drawn up against the petitioner where the main allegation was that he despite being the custodian of the file in question did not show promptness in getting the issued decided about the correct date of birth of the employee in question. An enquiry was held against him and enquiry officer held him guilty based on which punishment of censor, stoppage of two increments but without cumulative effect and recovery of money which was paid as salary to said Parmeshwar Prasad was also ordered, initially this amount was divided between the petitioner and the said Vishnukant Jha. But it seems that in an appeal filed by said Vishnukant Jha he was exonerated and even the share of money which was to be recovered from the said Vishnukant Jha was shifted on the head of petitioner. In the present writ application the petitioner has not only challenged the order of punishment but also order passed in appeal which is contained in annexure-1. The appellate authority has confirmed the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority.