AJIT KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the ex parte enquiry report dated 5.10.1999 and also the order dated 29.11.1999 as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ application whereby, on the basis of the said enquiry report, the petitioner has been directed to show cause as to why the amount allegedly defalcated be not recovered from his pension/gratuity and why the pension and gratuity be not forfeited. The petitioner by amendment petition also challenges the order/resolution dated 15.6.2000 whereby during pendency of this writ application the respondents have taken a decision to recover Rs. 1,47,88,673 from the petitioner and also to forfeit the entire pension amount.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Range Officer of Forests in 1956 and was ultimately promoted to the post of Divisional Forest Officer in 1990 and, thereafter he was superannuated in the said post on 30.11.1994. Two days after his superannuation a first information report was lodged against the petitioner on the allegation of defalcation on public money. Simultaneously a departmental proceeding was initiated and by letter dated 23.11.1996 the petitioner was directed to appear before the conducting officer - The petitioner said to have received that letter on 9.1.1997 and then moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 635/97(R). The writ application was heard and a Bench of this Court passed an order dated 6.3.1997 staying the departmental proceeding. The said writ application was finally heard and dismissed on 23.3.1998 holding that both the departmental proceeding and criminal case may proceed simultaneously. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed LPA No. 207/98(R) which was finally heard and dismissed on 25.2.1999. It is contended that without asking the petitioner to participate in the departmental proceeding and without giving any opportunity of hearing the impugned show -cause notice dated 29.11.1999 was issued along with ex parte enquiry report dated 15.10.1999 directing the petitioner to show -cause why the entire retiral dues be not forfeited on the ground that he was found guilty in the enquiry report for misappropriation of Government money.

(3.) I have heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Marathia, learned Government Pleader No. 2.