ROSHAN LAL BHAGAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash Government Order No. 166 -F of 2001 dated 11.07.2001 whereby his services have been terminated. He also seeks to quash the enquiry report No.CDI/53/95 (FD) dated 08.01.1999. He seeks further writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to re -instate the petitioner as Accounts Officer with all consequential service benefits and treat the period of suspension and after the termination till date as on duty.

(2.) PETITIONER , while posted as Treasury Officer, Thathri has made drawls of his TA claims, Medical reimbursement and also allowed the drawals presented to him by Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It came to the notice of respondents that petitioner has misappropriated the amount while working as Treasury Officer. Preliminary enquiry was held and on the basis of that enquiry, communication dated 6.2.1995 was issued to the petitioner by the Director Accounts and Treasuries, Jammu, indicating there in that petitioner has tempered the cash memos bearing No. 10131 dated 7.3.1994 and No. 10144 dated 13.3.1994 and thereby withdrew an amount of Rs. 5000/ - and 10,000/ - from the Treasury. The other allegations were that petitioner has drawn DA arrears from 7/1992 to

(3.) /1993 for Rs. 72,734.00, L.T.C. Claims amounting to Rs. 3,17,460/ -, Medical re -imbursement of Rs. 1,21,309/ -, Treasury Officers personal claims amounting to Rs. 95,648.78, Treasury staff claims of Rs. 69,927.43, Traveling expenses of Rs. 9,124.00. He was also called upon vide said letter to refund immediately an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - drawn by the petitioner fraudulently and further to show cause within 15 days as to why action under rules be not taken against him for these acts of commission. 3. Respondents, in the meantime, issued Government Order No. 88 -F of 1995 dated 31.03.1995, referring two charges of drawal of medical claims of Rs. 10,499/ - and Rs. 11,555/ -, in his capacity as Treasury officer Thathri and Mahore respectively, to the Commissioner of Enquiries, for holding enquiry in terms of Rule 33 of the J&K (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (for short "1956 rules" hereafter). The Commissioner of Enquiries enquired into six charges instead of 2 charges referred to it and submitted its report that all the charges are proved. Accepting the said enquiry report the services of the petitioner were terminated vide impugned order.