RANGNATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing Annexure-8 & 9, whereby it is ordered that 30% of the cost of stolen article i.e. Rs. 93,129/- be recovered from the salary of petitioner on 59 installments at the rate of Rs. 1552/- per month. Besides aforesaid order of recovery, petitioner was also censor for dereliction of duty and it is ordered that the same be entered in his A.C.R. of the year 2002-03.

(2.) It appears that at the relevant time, petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in Mechanical Sub-Division-I, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Jamshedpur. It then appears that petitioner was also In-charge of UNICEF Store of Gamarhria. It is stated that in the night of 14.02.2003, a theft committed in the aforesaid UNICEF Store and during the said theft some articles were stolen worth Rs. 3,10,431.30. It appears that petitioner was given show cause notice to explain, why 30% of the cost of stolen article be not recovered from his salary? It appears that petitioner gave detail reply, stating therein that keys of aforesaid Store remains with store-keeper namely Paramhans Jha and he is only acquainted with the materials kept in the Store. It is further stated that Superintending Engineer exonerated him from the charge, who conducted internal inquiry and submitted a confidential report to the State Government. Petitioner further stated that Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, while supervising the case, had come to the conclusion that Paramhans Jha is only responsible for missing of articles kept in the Store, because on investigation, it was found that no theft, as alleged in the F.I.R., has been committed. It then appears that the State Government concluded that the petitioner is responsible for the theft committed in the Store and accordingly, vide order dated 10.02.2006 decided to recover that 30% of the cost of stolen articles i.e. Rs. 93,129/- from the salary of petitioner. By the same order, petitioner was also censored and it is ordered that same be entered in his A.C.R. of 2002-03. Annexure-9 reveals that respondent No. 5 decided to recover aforesaid amount of Rs. 93,129/- from petitioner in 59 installments at the rate of Rs. 1552/- per month.

(3.) It is submitted by Sri Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner, that while passing the impugned order, the State Government has not assigned any reason as to how it come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. He then submits that even reply given by the petitioner, in response to show cause notice, has not been reflected in the order. Accordingly, he submits that impugned order clearly shows that the respondents did not apply their mind on the facts and materials produced before it and in mechanical manner passed impugned orders. It is further submitted that a similar order was passed against the Assistant Engineer for recovery of cost of stolen articles to the extent of Rs. 62,082/-. It is submitted that against aforesaid order Assistant Engineer filed a writ application in this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 7651 of 2006. The said writ application disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 05.08.2009 and aforesaid order quashed, with liberty to the State Government to re-examine the matter. It is submitted that the State Government, after re-considering the matter, has come to the conclusion that the Store Keeper Paramhans Jha is only responsible for missing of articles from the Store. Accordingly, by Annexure-12, the Executive Engineer was directed by Superintending Engineer to recover all the amount from Paramhans Jha. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of the State Government, it is submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained.