BHAGIRATH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is said to have retired on 31.10.2009 from the post of Head Clerk in the office of District Supply Officer, Simdega. He was placed under suspension on 17.7.1998 for the alleged charges of misappropriation of Government fund, forgery, unauthorized withholding of office, non-performance of his duty, non-maintenance of accounts and several other charges. Charge sheet was served upon him on 18.8.1998 and he was asked to submit his show cause in the Departmental Proceeding No.4/1998. During course of the said proceeding the suspension order was revoked on 22.11.2001. After his retirement, according to the petitioner, he has been imposed with a punishment of censure through order dated 23.8.2010 passed by respondent no.2, Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, which has been challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioner has also sought for a direction upon the respondents not to withhold or withdraw any increment in pay of the petitioner in view of the order of punishment.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent-State, upon relying the statements made in the Counter Affidavit, submits that the inquiry officer found him guilty of the aforesaid charges in which the petitioner was given due notice to appear and he had also asked for the audit report of the Gumla district. He was given time for the same. Notices were issued to the petitioner on 12.9.2009 and 6.10.2009 but the petitioner deliberately never produced the report and showed his inability so that the proceedings were delayed. In the meantime the petitioner has retired on 31.10.2009 and the conducting Officer-cum-Project Officer, Meso Area, Simdega found him guilty of indiscipline and disobedience. This report dated 12.7.2010 is enclosed as Annexure B to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even after having found guilty on several counts the petitioner has been only imposed with minor penalty of censure by the respondent no.2. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents by referring to the inquiry report that though the allegation of misappropriation of some Government money was not found to be made out but dereliction in duty and charges of indiscipline and disobedience were made out, for which the inquiry officer had opined that punishment under the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, such as censure, withholding of increments, pension etc. could have been imposed. Since the petitioner had superannuated, therefore, he had opined that he can be exonerated of these charges. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority while considering the inquiry report found that the petitioner has retired and was found guilty of indiscipline, negligence and disobedience of the order of his superior. Therefore, he has been imposed with a minor punishment to be entered in his service book. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, therefore, the aforesaid punishment could not effect his post retirement dues.