PARASHURAM PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner who was a clerk in the Circle Office, Purnahiya, has approached this court for quashing of the order dated 17.05.2003 of the District Magistrate, Sheohar (hereinafter referred to as D.M.), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. It has also been directed that other than subsistence allowances nothing shall be paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension. Petitioner has assailed the said order before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. Order of the Commissioner dated 19.07.2005 rejecting the petitioner's service appeal case no. 41 of 2004/05 has also been assailed in the instant proceeding.

(3.) Brief background is that the authorities proceeded against the petitioner by charge memo dated 01.10.2002. The same alleges that in spite of specific instruction in the transfer order transferring him from Purnahiya Circle Office to Office of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the petitioner did not comply with the same. The charge memo on Prapatra Ka further alleges that the authorities had given directions to hand over the charge of the earlier post at Purnahiya pursuant to the transfer order, which also was violated by the petitioner. The transfer order is 27.06.2001 and the direction for petitioner to submit his relieving was issued on 19.07.2001. It is also alleged that the petitioner who was then posted as a Head Clerk in the office of the Circle Officer, Sheohar, had not submitted the updated cash book and registers and that he was not obeying the authorities. Certain allegations are also made that some amounts have been withdrawn by the petitioner on the basis of bills, for which, there is no accounting in the books of accounts, maintained in the office where the petitioner was then posted as a Head Clerk. The charges were served on the petitioner and he was called upon to give his written statement of the defence. The petitioner in response to the same submitted his representation on 08.10.2002. The petitioner had denied the allegations and made a request to the authority that since a criminal proceeding had also been instituted in respect of the same charges, in G.R. Case No. 282/2001, the departmental proceedings should await conclusion of the criminal proceedings since the Purnahiya P.S. Case No. 34/2001 was in respect of the same charges and that the petitioner was to be prejudiced by disclosing his defence in the departmental proceedings since the criminal court was considering the same allegations.