LAWS(PAT)-2008-3-55

SRI INDRAJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On March 13, 2008
Sri Indrajit Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE petitioner was suspended. Six charges were framed against him. He filed his reply. The enquiry report was submitted. A second show cause notice was issued to him with regard to charges 1, 2 & 3. He filed his reply when final orders have been passed for 5% deduction of his pension consequent to his retirement on 31.12.1997 and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension.

(3.) IN context of charge no. 1 the submission is that the Inquiry Officer has himself noted that as an auditor the petitioner had raised objections with regard to certain financial matters in his audit report. However, the Inquiry Officer has observed that the petitioner as the auditor should have been more vociferous and dogged in pursuing his audit objections. In absence of having done so he had indirectly aided in the commission of the irregularities. This was not a finding of guilt but a finding based on surmises and conjectures. No punishment could be imposed without a finding of guilt. With regard to charge no. 2. learned counsel submitted that the Inquiry Officer arrived at a finding that on the basis of the materials it appears that the petitioner was subsequently authorized to carry on the audit of the Societies in question for which he was not originally authorized. The findings were therefore, one of exoneration. For charge no. 3, the Inquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion that the cause of delay in audit of 17 Societies was that the petitioner was involved in the audit of other Banks. This was also an order of exoneration. On a finding based on surmises and conjectures and two findings of exoneration, a second show cause notice was issued. This did not set out the materials on which the disciplinary authority was satisfied of a finding of guilt or brief reasons for differing with the report of exoneration of two charges. In absence of the same the orders of punishment are vitiated.