AJIT KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.11.1996, that is, Annexure 2, passed by Additional Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Forest & Environment, whereby the petitioner has been informed about the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding and he was directed to file his show cause before 'the Enquiry Officer.

(2.) FROM the allegations made in the petition and also from the counter affidavit in this case, certain facts are well admitted. Admittedly the petitioner was working as a Divisional Forest Officer in the State Trading Division, Gumla, from Feb. 1990 and he superannuated from that post on 30.11.1994. The office of the petitioner was first of all inspected by Conservator of Forest, State Trading on 7.11.94 on the complaint of certain irregularities and the petitioner was also informed to remain present on 16th and 17th of Nov. 1994 with various documents, but he was conspicuously absent and on 16th and 17th of Nov. 1994, a detailed inspection was made by Conservator of Forest, Sri A.K. Mishra and he found that in violation of the established Rules, the petitioner as D.F.O., State Trading, sold timber to various persons, but the amount of the same was not deposited in the Bank of India account through the Treasury and it was detected at that time that the petitioner defalcated the Govt. money, that is, the price of the timber worth Rs. 32,92,000/ - and suspicion was cast that as the petitioner has taken away various Registers and documents to his home place, so the defalcation amount may go higher. Sri Mishra then filed an FIR on 29.11.94, that is, Annexure -1 as against the petitioner and on that basis, Gumla P.S. Case no. 225/94 was instituted under Section 409 IPC. During investigation, the defacation amount was found to be to the tune of Rs. 1,47,00,000/ - or so. The matter was reported to the Govt. and the Govt. vide order dt. 29.11.94 put the petitioner under suspension and the suspension order was served to the petitioner in the afternoon of 30.11.94 and at that time he also superannuated. Also a departmental proceeding was drawn up by the Govt. by a separate notification of the Forest Deptt. dt. 12.7.96 and Sri A.K. Sinha, Chief Conservator of Forest was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, but Sri Sinha died on 18.8.96 and could not take up the enquiry and, thus, vide order dt. 23.11.96, that is, Annexure 2 which is being challenged in this writ application, Sri A.Kumar was appointed as Enquiry Officer and memorandum of charges was also framed and the petitioner was informed to appear before the Enquiry Office and to submit his show cause. But the petitioner instead of filing any show cause filed this writ application in which an ad interim stay was granted on 6.3.97 and till further the departmental proceeding was stayed.

(3.) NO doubt in the writ application, various grounds were alleged for quashing the departmental proceeding, such as, that the departmental proceeding was not initiated within two years from the date of retirement and, in fact, Sri A.K. Mishra, Conservator of Forest who was the main accused himself and he was also made an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and in order to save his skin, he had implicated the petitioner and, further the departmental proceeding and the criminal case cannot proceed simultaneously because if the departmental proceeding is taken up first, then the petitioner has to disclose his defence in the departmental proceeding which will cause prejudice in his defence in the criminal case. So in any view of the matter, the departmental proceeding should be stayed till disposal of the criminal case.