JAY CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vindayachal Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, learned AC to AAG-4.

(2.) The petitioner, who is a Block Statistical Supervisor, Dinara at Rohtas and who was deputed as In-charge, Purchase Centre, Belwaiya, State Food Corporation has challenged the order dated 08.01.2018 issued under the signature of the Director, Economics & Statistics Directorate (Planning and Development Department), Government of Bihar, Patna whereby he has been subjected to a punishment of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect; as also the order dated 28.09.2018 contained in Memo No. 341 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Planning and Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

(3.) It appears that while discharging his duties as In-charge of the Purchase Centre, Belwaiya, the petitioner, in accordance with the mandate of his job, had purchased wheat and had transferred the same to the godown of the State Warehousing Corporation through the logistics provided by the District Manager, State Food Corporation. The transportation was effected through 128 trucks, for which the petitioner had definite evidence in his possession. On 04.11.2013, the petitioner was surprised to receive a notice from the District Manager, State Food Corporation, Rohtas at Sasaram directing him to deposit approximately rupees nineteen lakhs because of detection of short supply of wheat by 1283.90 quintals because according to the District Manager, State Food Corporation, out of total purchase of 31369.75 quintals of wheat from the farmers through the agency of PACS, only 30085.85 quintals of wheat was supplied in the depot of Bihar State Warehousing Corporation. Another notice followed the aforesaid notice directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 18,30,892.75 which was the cost of 1426.04 quintals of wheat. Later, an explanation also was sought from the petitioner regarding shortage of the aforesaid quantity of wheat from the godown of the Purchase Centre of which the petitioner was the In- charge. The petitioner was also communicated through a notice that out of the wheat which was sent by the petitioner to the depot of Warehousing Corporation, approximately 1425 quintals of wheat was rejected and therefore such quantity of wheat was sent back to the purchase centre, for it to be stored in the godown attached to the centre. When the said wheat was auction sold, the auction purchaser could not lift the same from the godown as such amount of wheat was found to be non-existent. It was therefore sought to be known from the petitioner as to what happened to the aforesaid quantity of wheat and why a criminal case be not lodged against the petitioner simultaneously with a departmental proceeding against him.