HIT NARAYAN JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the matter is called out counsel for the petitioner is absent.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents has pointed out that against the petitioner there is a charge that the petitioner being a Transport Officer has taken unauthorisedly Rs. 3.000/ - from his subordinate i.e. the Driver Hawaldar in year. 1999 mainly on the ground that if the money is not paid the Driver Hawaldar will be sent out of the head office for his duty as the wife of the Driver Hawaldar had expired in year. 1997, he has also to take care of his one year daughter and therefore under this pretext the present petitioner was demanding money unauthorisedly from the Driver Hawaldar. Charge -sheet was issued upon the petitioner. Inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer against the present petitioner and adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to the petitioner for representing his case and several witnesses were examined by the employer State authorities and the charges levelled against the petitioner was proved as per the departmental inquiry officer's report dated 30th April. 2002, which is annexed with the supplementary affidavit. filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 5th May. 2010 and witness, namely Ganesh Ram was examined as witness on behalf of the Management. The Management has also recorded the statement of Rajendra Ravidas who has given clear statement against the present petitioner. Witness No. 2 - Hawaldar Shem Barla who has stated that when the Driver Hawaldar was to send for duty outside the headquarter then this petitioner had favoured the Driver Hawaldar for not to send him out of the head - quarter duty. Likewise, several witnesses have been examined by the Management Rajendra Ravidas who was examined as Management witness No.4. has clearly stated that Rs. 3.000/ - was taken from the Driver Hawaldar for not to send him out of the Headquarter duty.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the respondents and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case : (1) it appears that there are serious charges against the petitioner. Petitioner has obtained unauthorisedly Rs. 3.000/ - from the Driver Hawaldar on the ground that if the money is not paid he will be sent out of the Headquarter for duty. The Driver Hawaldar who has paid the money had to take care of his one year daughter because his wife had expired in the year. 1997. For this charge a chargesheet was given to the petitioner. Opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and thereafter an Inquiry Officer was appointed.