STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. NAND KISHORE SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State of Jharkhand against the judgment and order dated 13.5.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3177 of 2007, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein was allowed and the impugned order dated 10.8.2007 passed by the appellant-State against the respondent No. 1 dismissing him from service, was quashed and set aside. Consequently the petitioner was held to be entitled to all consequential benefits and hence this appeal has been filed by the appellant-State of Jharkhand.

(2.) The relevant details giving rise to this appeal at the instance of the State indicate that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 was posted in the State of Bihar as Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division and while he was posted as Executive Engineer, he was entrusted with the work to supervise the supply of bitumen for which an order was placed with the Indian Oil Corporation. The work order was issued by the competent authority for the supply of bitumen and a bank draft of Rs. 34.23 lacs was issued to be handed over to the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC in short) for supply of bitumen. Since the respondent No. 1 was the over all incharge as Executive Engineer for supply of bitumen, the demand draft was to be handed over to the IOC through the respondent No. 1.

(3.) Admittedly the respondent No. 1 deposited the demand draft with the IOC but inspite of this, supply of the product, so ordered, was not made by the IOC for over a period of two months. However in the month of June, 1999, IOC wrote to the respondent No. 1 indicating that the supply of bitumen would not be possible as factory at Haldia from where the supply was to be made by the IOC way closed and hence it was not possible to make the supply. Although, this letter was addressed to the Respondent No. 1, he, in the meantime, had been divested of the charge/responsibility to supervise and ensure supply of bitumen by the IOC and hence the letter which was written to the respondent No. 1 by the IOC, was referred lo the Chief Engineer of the Irrigation Department, who by this time had been entrusted with the charge and duty to take care of the supply of bitumen. The petitioner-respondent No. 1, therefore, had ceased to be the Incharge to supervise and ensure supply of bitumen by the IOC to the State.