PATNA HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Vs. RAM KRIPAL PRASAD HONBLE JUDGES:SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 17.8.2007 (Annexure -8) petitioner has been dismissed from service of Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam (hereinafter referred to as 'Nigam '). The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the said order of dismissal issued under signature of Managing Director of the Nigam and has prayed for a direction for his reinstatement in service alongwith consequential benefits. The essential facts which are not in dispute disclose that the petitioner joined service of the Nigam as an Assistant in the year 1980. He received promotions and during relevant time he was posted as Regional Manager at Hajipur. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Company Secretary -cum -Chief of Finance. During the vacancy on the post of regular Managing Director of the Nigam between 3.1.2005 to 20.2.2005 he also worked as Managing Director of the Nigam and on joining of regular Managing Director he was posted back as Chief of Finance till his dismissal by the impugned order. It is also not in dispute that the new Managing Director joined the Nigam on 2.7.2007 and on 3.7.2007 vide Annexure -1 petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding in respect of acts of omission and commission disclosed in the said order. The memorandum of charge annexed to the formal order ordering for disciplinary proceeding dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure -2) shows that as per charge No. 1, petitioner was found absent from office without permission on 2.7.2007 at 5:30 P.M. and the office informed that probably he had gone to participate in some programme at the Radio Station, Patna. According to charge No. 2, the petitioner had acted contrary to provision in the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976. according to which a Government servant cannot participate in radio or press programme without permission of Superior Officer. The 3rd charge was that while officiating as Managing Director and when he was not the notified Managing Director under any formal orders of the State Government and when there was ban on apppointment in such Corporations by the Government, the petitioner had passed orders on 31.1.2005 for regularizing service of three daily wage employees as regular employees. And the last charge was to the effect that during year 1988. -1991 petitioner was Regional Manager, Hajipur and according to audit report an amount of Rs. 1,11,54,762.89/ -(One Crore eleven lacs fifty four thousand seven hundred sixty two and paise eighty nine only) remained pending as unadjusted advance which amounted to defalcation of public money and the petitioner made no efforts for adjustment of the said money disbursed by him as advance. Alongwith memo of charge the Managing Director of the Nigam enclosed memo of evidence enclosing (i) statement of petitioner before the Managing Director made on 2.7.2007, (ii) appointment report in respect of three daily wage employees, and (iii) report of internal audit.

(3.) IN the disciplinary proceeding the petitioner submitted his show -cause before the conducting officer in which he claimed that he had obtained verbal permission of the earlier Managing Director for participating in radio telecast which was to be recorded on 2.7.2007 but was unfortunately not recorded on that date. In respect of regularizing three daily wage employees, he admitted the fact that he had made those appointments but claimed that as an officiating Managing Director he had the necessary power to do so and since those employees did not receive any remuneration from the Nigam and were subsequently removed from service as per resolution of the Board of Directors hence his action had not caused any financial loss to the Nigam. In respect of unadjusted advance at Hajipur the petitioner claimed that he had made ali efforts for adjustment of the advances and the responsibility of not taking into consideration certain vouchers were alleged by him upon some employees of the Account section. According to his reply some such vouchers were deposited by some employee later and even during enquiry by CBi in the year. 2002 but those vouchers had remained pending and adjustment had not been made by the Nigam.