TRILOKI NATH Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has primarily called in question the legality of Government Order No.101-RD of 2004 dated 01.06.2004, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,26,975/- has been held recoverable from the petitioner. The petitioner has also called in question the subsequent communication whereby in compliance to the Government order impugned the petitioner has been directed to deposit the aforesaid amount found recoverable from him in an enquiry conducted by the respondents.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner in the year 2002 was posted as Block Development Officer, Lohi Malhar, District Kathua. A requisition for procurement of 900 bags of ACC brand cement was placed by the petitioner with "Mandli Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Bilawar" vide his order No.780-82 dated 02.11.2002. A sum of Rs. 1,87,257/- was paid to the aforesaid Society by the petitioner on account of cost of the said cement. It is alleged that instead of ACC brand cement, the petitioner accepted sub-standard cement carrying the brand name ACE which was used for construction of Panchayat Ghar, Malad and Primary School, Najote, thus, compromising the quality of work. It was further alleged that the petitioner drew the payment of ACC brand and disburse it to the Society in cash without stock entries. Upon a complaint received by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua with regard to the procurement and use of poor quality of cement by the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was instituted in which it was prima facie found that the petitioner along with other staff members were involved in the purchase and use of the sub-standard quality of cement. The petitioner during the course of preliminary inquiry was attached but on being found prima facie involved in the purchase and use of sub-standard cement and causing loss to the public exchequer, the petitioner along with other officials of the department were placed under suspension vide Government Order No.72/RDF of 2003 dated 15.03.2003. The petitioner and other officials were charge-sheeted and asked to submit their written statement of defence within 30 days. The petitioner submitted the reply to the charges framed by respondent No.1. Since the reply submitted was found not satisfactory, as such, regular enquiry was instituted into the article of charges framed against the petitioner.

(3.) Sh. Arun Kumar, KAS, Assistant Commissioner (Dev.), Jammu was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide Govt. Order No.258-RD of 2003 dated 06.10.2003. As is apparent from the documents on record, the inquiry officer furnished his inquiry report on 21.01.2004 prima facie establishing the charges against the petitioner. The inquiry officer, in his report, however, only recommended recovery of amount of loss to the extent of Rs. 1,26,975/- from the petitioner and others. The disciplinary authority i.e. the Government relying upon the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer exonerated the officers/officials like Junior Engineer, Work Supervisors and Plantation Watcher etc. who had been charge-sheeted along with the petitioner but held the petitioner alone responsible for the loss caused to the public exchequer. Accordingly, vide Government Order impugned dated 01.06.2004 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1, 26,975/- into the State treasury. This order, however, was not complied with by the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.2 vide its order No85-DRD of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 directed that the salary of the petitioner shall not be drawn till he refunds the amount of recovery ordered vide government order impugned. The subsequent communication issued in the year 2009, whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit the recovery amount appears to have woken up the petitioners to challenge the order impugned.