BABULAL* Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by an unsuccessful petitioner of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5129 of 1998 challenging the enquiry report Annex. 33, Annex. 36 order dated 29. 5. 91 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. Annex. 37 dated 3. 6. 91 by which the petitioner was relieved from his post and Annx. 39 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) APPELLANT was appointed as Store Munshi in November 1978 in Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara. On 19. 9. 84 while the petitioner was working as Store Munshi in Central Stores Sub Division, Mahi Project, Banswara, he reported to the Asstt. Engineer as his immediate superior Jr. Engineer was out of station, that 24 Injector Assemblies were missing. The immediate person superior to the petitioner in charge of the Store on that day was Mr. Govind Ram Leelani, a Junior Engineer. The petitioner-appellant reported that while in the Stores he was taking out the rack containing Stores that has were be issued, he noticed that parts were scattered all around and the packing boxes were empty. On physical verification, he found that Injector Assemblies were missing. He reported that these injectors might have been stolen between 3. 4. 1984 to 19. 4. 84. It appears that the said Govind Ram Leelani, Junior Engineer, incharge of the Stores also lodged a complaint on 29. 9. 84 at the Police Station about missing of 21 Injectors on 19. 9. 84 and three injectors missing on 20. 9. 94 valued at Rs. 30,646. The Superintendent of Police reported after the investigation concluded vide his letter dt. 7. 10. 85 (Ex. 34) that the report submitted by Mr. Leelani was false and according to him said Leelani himself is likely to be involved in reported theft of stores. The petitioner was issued memorandum of charge dated 24. 9. 86 in the first instance by the Executive Engineer alleging that the petitioner was guilty of making deliberate false report and either himself committing theft of 24 Injectors which are missing or connived in commission of theft and because of that the Govt. has suffered loss of Rs. 30,646/- and secondly that he has cheated the Govt. by falsely reporting to the superior officer about theft of the said articles. After this charge, the petitioner was suspended. The Executive Engineer was appointed an enquiry officer. Statements of C. B. Singh and Govind Ram Leelani were also recorded by the said Executive Engineer on 11. 12. 86. The petitioner has at that stage raised grievance about the manner in which the enquiry was conducted against him by written report dated 30. 1. 87 alleging that he was required to give statement as suggested by the enquiry officer and that he was conducting enquiry in a manner prejudicial to the delinquent officer. It appears that thereafter Shri R. B. Goyal was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 27. 4. 87 and he required the petitioner to submit the documents vide communication dated 28. 4. 87. The petitioner by his letter dated 8. 5. 87 demanded the copies of all statements recorded in the proceedings concerning the theft of Injector assemblies but the same were not supplied. By another order dated 11. 6. 87, the order appointing Shri R. B. Goyal as enquiry officer was cancelled. Thereafter, a fresh chargesheet was served by the Superintending Engineer on 16. 9. 87 in connection with the same subject matter. The allegation of charges in the memorandum of charges dated 16. 9. 87 (Annex. 20) vitally differed from the allegations of charges levelled against the petitioner in the earlier Memorandum of charges. This is apparent from the comparative reading of the two charges under the two Memorandum of charges. . . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .

(3.) IT may be noticed that while in the memorandum of charges dated 24th Sept. 1986 the petitioner has been directly accused of committing theft and making deliberate false report of theft to the Govt. and was charged with cheating the Govt. of such conduct, the charges under the new memo were substantially toned down. The charge of committing theft is missing in the second chargesheet. It only refers that by causing non-cooperation in the discharge of duties during 4. 9. 84 to 18. 9. 84 he has helped in loss of 24 Injector assemblies. Thus charge was confined to negligent discharge of duties. The second charge of cheating was not levelled at all but the same was restricted only to making a wrong report. He that as it may, thereafter the petitioner as well as said Leelani were issued memorandum of charges in respect of similar charges. Mr. Leelani, Junior Engineer was charged with making a false report to the Police about theft. He was also alleged accused for causing loss to the Govt. to the tune of Rs. 30,646/- by committing forgery and being a party to commission of theft of the Injector assemblies. He was thus accused of not maintaining the dignity of his office. Likewise, the appellant was also served with the charge that he assisted in commission of theft of 24 Injectors and therefore he is responsible for causing loss of Rs. 30,646/- to the Govt. In the details of charges it was said that he has submitted written report on 19. 4. 84 about the theft of 24 Injectors but this has been wrongly made to absolve himself from, sharing the responsibility for the supervision of the Stores because in the absence of concerned Junior Engineer keys remains with the Store Keeper. Since both the employees were subject to the similar nature of charge in respect of same subject mailer, a joint enquiry was conducted. On the conclusion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report that Govind Ram Leelani, Junior Engineer is responsible for supervisory negligence because he has left the supervisory duty to other persons viz. Chandra Bhushan Singh the Assistant Engineer, and Praveen Kumar Sharma Jr. Engineer and therefore cannot be absolved from the responsibility of lack of supervision which has resulted in loss to the Govt. The said two officers who were discharging supervisory duty in the absence of Leelani were also found guilty of the same offence and Shri Babulal, the present petitioner was also found guilty of the supervisory negligence that because of his negligence, the stores were found in shortage and were stolen. With these findings, Babulal Store Munshi was reported to be fully responsible for the shortage in the stores. The Disciplinary Authority vide his order dt. 25. 9. 91 Ex. 36 accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He held G. R. Leelani and Babulal Nagar, the petitioner as jointly delinquent for causing loss to Govt. The finding was recorded as under in Ex. 36. . . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .