STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SHAILESH KUMAR OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the grounds taken for condoning the delay, even though not very satisfactory, are disclosed sufficient reasons for condoning the delay.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case the respondent- petitioner Raghunandan Jha was the Circle Officer and he was the first initial authority who had made the recommendations for the purpose of settlement in spite of fact that the land for which the proposal was made was not free from encumbrances and was rather settled through receipts in favour of tenure-holders. The contention, therefore, in short is that the very recommendation made by the respondent- petitioner proceeded on an incorrect fact fed by him resulting in wrong decisions by the higher authorities.

(3.) It is further submitted that the respondent-petitioner has been found guilty of the charges by the Inquiry Officer, yet the learned Single Judge has proceeded to quash the entire proceedings including the punishment meted out to him which was neither selective nor discriminatory and was based on the material that was found against the delinquent employee during the inquiry proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has rightly proceeded to accept the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement.