RAJENDRA KISHORE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been imposed with a punishment by notification No. 1862 dated 3rd June 2013 issued under the signature of the respondent No. 4-Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture & Cane Development, Government of Jharkhand, whereunder five increments have been withheld with cumulative effect and it has also been ordered that an amount of Rs. 1,62,489/- be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in monthly installments and such monthly installment shall be equal to half of the monthly salary of the petitioner. If the petitioner retires before full recovery of the amount, balance amount will be recovered from payable due/amount paid against gratuity/earned leave encashment.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order inter alia on the following grounds:--

(3.) According to the petitioner, he is a member of Bihar Agriculture Service and was posted as a Deputy Director, Udyan and was also made in-charge of the State Level Monitoring Committee for the district of Deoghar in respect of distribution of Kulthi Seeds under the "Contingent Crop Programme, 2010". The petitioner was to coordinate between the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Deoghar and the Scientists of Zonal Research Station, Dumka. For dereliction of duty and negligence in distribution of Kulthi Seeds to the tune of 223.20 quintals amounting to Rs. 16,24,896/-, he was placed under suspension vide resolution dated 6th January, 2012 (Annexure-2) issued by the respondent Department. Articles of charges were served upon him on 21st February, 2012 vide Annexure-4 inter alia alleging that the loss of 223.20 quintals of Kulthi Seeds out of total 500 quintals of Seeds allotted for distribution for the said district reflected the lack of coordination on the part of the petitioner who was posted as Deputy Director, Udyan and Incharge, State Level Monitoring Committee for Deoghar. It was his responsibility to undertake continuous monitoring of the seeds distributed and also its regular review while also bringing the matter to the notice of the Director/Secretary, Agriculture. His aforesaid acts showed negligence and dereliction of duty. The aforesaid scheme was introduced in view of the bought situation faced in the area which, because of the petitioner's negligence in discharging his responsibility, was frustrated. The said act has resulted in total loss of Rs. 16,24,896/- to the State Exchequer. By resolution of 25th February 2012, the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were also appointed with a direction to conclude the departmental proceeding, within a period of three months. The petitioner is said to have participated in the departmental inquiry denying the charges while the Presenting Officer represented the case of the Department.