CHOUDHARY MURLI MANOHAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was issued memo of charges on seven counts. In the departmental proceeding a finding of guilt was returned with regard to charges No. 1(d), 2, 4 & 6. A second show cause notice was issued replied to by the petitioner when the punishment of dismissal has been imposed by order dated 26.9.1997, presently assailed.

(2.) LEARNED Senior Counsel, Shri Chitranjan Sinha with regard to charge 1(d) submitted that the Inquiry Officer relied upon an enquiry report of the Anchal Adhikari, who in turn was stated to have recorded the statement of two employees making allegations against the petitioner of having demanded illegal gratification. The petitioner denied the charge in his reply. It was, therefore, necessary for the Inquiry Officer to have examined the Anchal Adhikari and the other two employees as witnesses to prove the allegations. Irrespective of the fact that the petitioner may have made no request to summon them for cross -examination does not detract from the primary responsibility of the prosecution to prove its own case and for the Inquiry Officer to examine them and record their statements for the purpose. In absence of the same, it becomes the mere ipse fixit of the Inquiry Officer and an basis of materials outside the inquiry, making the finding unsustainable as based on conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on a Bench decision of this Court reported in : 2000 (3) PLJR 10 Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar v. B.S. Co -Opt Land Dev. Bank Ltd. and Ors. in support thereof. With regard to charge No. 2, learned Counsel submitted that the statement of the person whom the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted and the witnesses in whose presence the assault is alleged to have been made have not been examined. The Inquiry Officer has relied upon an enquiry report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari. The Inquiry Officer then imports his personal knowledge to hold that during his site visit he had inquired from people generally who had confirmed the occurrence. Thus becoming a witness himself vitiating the whole enquiry. With regard to charge No. 4, it was submitted that the petitioner was on casual leave on 10.5.1995. No material was placed before the Inquiry Officer to arrive at the finding that the petitioner had been directed to report for duty on 11.5.1995 when it was a Gazetted holiday from the latter date till 14.5.1995. To hold him guilty the Inquiry Officer simply states that employees at the District headquarters and Anchal headquarters are aware of their deputation during important festival like Bakrid. The petitioner, therefore, had no right to remain on a Gazetted holiday. The submission, therefore, was that in absence of proof for direction to be present on 11.5.1995 the finding was perverse. No order of 11.5.1995 had been brought on record. On charge No. 6, it was submitted that the petitioner had submitted his report on basis of an order passed of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in Bataidari Case No. 6 of 1992 -1993. That aspect of the matter has not been considered at all before returning a finding of guilt making it perverse.

(3.) CHARGE No. 1(d) alleged that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 200/ - from two Halka Karamchari for verification of Register III A and IIIAA during preparation of Return II entries for the years 1994 -95. Charge 2 alleged that the petitioner assaulted the Nazir and abused him for his failure to have the salary encashed. Charge 4 alleged that he went on casual leave on 10.4.1995 and despite directions to be present for duty on 11.5.1995 for law and order duty, a Gazetted holiday, on account of Bakrid, he absented himself. Charge 6 related to his report that the lands in question were free from ceiling leading to declaration as raiyat of a person. At the time of grant of revenue receipt, it was discovered that the lands had already been declared surplus and parwana issued and, therefore, an incorrect report was submitted by him.