YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal from service passed on 30.10.2000 by the Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna contained in Annexure '1 ' in which the disciplinary authority found that six out of the seven charges leveled against the petitioner to be true.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was a Junior Engineer working in the Knoar Canal Division, Dumri in the year, 1987 -88. At the relevant time the petitioner was Incharge of the godown at Dumri. The petitioner applied and was granted leave to attend the marriage ceremony of his younger brother. He remained on leave from 1.6.1987 to 10.6.1987. After he joined at Dumri on 11.6.1987, the petitioner found that there was a shortage of cement bags and it appeared to him that a few thousand bags had been removed from the godown. The petitioner has averred that he informed the Superintending Engineer vide letters. dated 11.6.1987 arid 15.6.1987 and also brought to the notice of the authorities, that the Gate Keeper of the godown was missing. The gate pass and folio which were kept with the Gate Keeper were seized by the petitioner and from the folio he could decipher that between 1.6.1987 to 10.6.1987 more than five thousand bags of cement had been removed from the godown under the signature of one Ramjit Rai, Sub -divisional Officer and Ashok Kumar Singh, Junior Engineer. All these facts were brought to the notice of the Superintending Engineer as well as the other authorities. However, no action was taken against either the Sub -divisional Officer or the Junior Engineer Incharge who were Incharge of the godown during the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner again had to go on leave as he was hospitalized due to chest pain. During that period the Executive Engineer lodged a criminal case being Dumri P.S. Case No. 23 of 1987 and the petitioner was put under suspension vide memo no. 941, dated 15.10.1987 after the institution of the criminal case. The authorities ordered that a enquiry should be held to fix the responsibility on the person who was responsible for the alleged shortage of the cement bags from the godown and as such the Chief Engineer (Technical) conducted an enquiry. The findings are contained in Annexure 9/A of the writ petition. It would be relevant to note that the enquiry report was submitted to the minister of the Water Resources Department vide letter no. 53, dated 18.9.1991. The enquiring officer found that the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged shortage of cement bags and the only mistake that was committed by him was that he did not institute a first information report with respect to the shortage of cement bags. Despite the findings of the enquiry officer, on the very next day a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner vide memo no. 2047 Pat. -15, dated 19.9.1991 under rule 55 of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1950 by which Sri Bindeshwari Prasad was appointed as the conducting officer and the memo of charges was issued to the petitioner. Annexure 10 is the findings of the conducting officer wherein he has found the petitioner guilty of six out of seven charges and thereafter the order impugned has been issued.

(3.) THE main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that while issuing the order impugned, the principles of natural justice have not been followed and the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority is contrary to the established rules of conducting a departmental enquiry under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the documents relied upon by the authorities during the proceeding were not supplied to the petitioner and in that view of the matter the entire proceeding is vitiated. For this purpose, it would be necessary to refer to Annexure 9, i.e. the order by which the charges were issued to the petitioner. The charges, in brief, arc : (i) The petitioner was Incharge of Doria Chainpur and Dumri godowns and it is alleged that 5745 bags of cement were stolen during his tenure the cost of which would be Rs. 3,15,975/ - @ Rs.55/ - per bag. (ii) The petitioner has taken an advance of Rs.45.587.67 in July, 1987 but has not submitted any account for the same. (iii) Despite orders issued in May, 1987, the petitioner had not handed over the T.L.P. charge etc. to the Assistant Engineer, Dumri. (iv) The petitioner was found prima facie guilty of being absent after 1.9.1987 after submission of the physical verification report by to Sri Ram Laddu Singh, Assistant Engineer. He was on leave without sanction of the higher authorities. (v) The petitioner has been responsible for stealing the following documents : (a) Measurement book nos. 255, 256, 252 and 254. (b) Stock register of Dumri, Doria and chainpur godowns. (c) The folio and gate passes of the three godowns were stolen. (d) The documents relating to transportation of cements of November, 1986 and February, 1987 were missting. (e) Other relevant documents relating to the three godowns of cement. (vi) It has been alleged, that the petitioner has prepared false documents with respect to the stolen bags of cement. (vii) The petitioner has been prima facie found guilty of tampering with the documents belonging to the department which is against the Government rules and regulations.