KALIKA PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of punishment dated 13.8.2001 (Annexure 6) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Dumka as contained in order No. 170 of 2001 and Memo No. 1098/Estt/Dumka.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner, Kalika Prasad Sinha was working in the District Treasury Office of Dumka, when he took charge of the post of Senior Accountant from one M.P. Verma, who had retired and in the year 1996 an FIR being Dumka (T) PS Case No. 15 of 1996 (State v. Dr. N.N. Verma and Ors.) was registered for forged and illegal withdrawal of Government money from Government Treasury, although he was not named in the FIR, but he was put under suspension with immediate effect, i.e., from 14.2.1996, vide memo No. 438/A on the ground that investigation of the criminal offence against the petitioner although he was not named in the FIR. Some time Dumka (T) PS Case No. 15 of the 1996 was transferred to CBI and re -numbered as RC 40(A)/96 -Patna against named accused persons and petitioner's name did not figure in the aforesaid case. The petitioner surrendered on 26.2.1996 and was bailed out on 7.6.1996 by the CBI, Special Court, Patna as no charge -sheet was submitted within prescribed time. Charge -sheet was submitted on 1.7.1997 by the CBI against other accused persons but the petitioner was not among them. Special Judge took cognizance against other accused persons but not against the petitioner.

(3.) THE writ petition was finally disposed of on 24.2.2000 with the aforesaid direction and also to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner. The petitioner was not paid anything after retirement and, therefore, petitioner again filed CWJC No. 8154 of 1998 for a direction for payment of retiral benefits. In this writ petition an interim order was passed on 12.5.1999 to consider the grievance of the petitioner. In the meantime, a departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner and charge was framed and served, vide memo No. 74 dated 14.1.1999 and petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.1.1999 before the conducting officer, but no decision was taken due to frequent transfer of the conducting officer. In the year 2000 the respondent authorities vide Memo No. 575 (Estt) Dumka dated 22.4.2000 asked show cause from the petitioner on the charge stated in the said letter. Altogether five charges were framed against the petitioner and almost all the charges were confined to assisting the Treasury Officer in withdrawal of Government money from the Treasury by willfully neglecting the duties to check the bills and the allotment amount. The petitioner filed his show cause on the charges and pleaded his innocence. The petitioner demanded copies of such bills which were not legally correct and which the petitioner was not legally supposed to have passed, such bills which do not bear the certificate of Drawing and Disbursing Officer, any of the officer of the Finance Department prior to 30.1.1996 by which there was, any direction to ask for allotment letter along with the bills which the petitioner did not comply and any Government order during the petitioner's tenure fixing the outer limit of the allotment amount and that any such bills which have been returned with objection by the A.G. Bihar. The aforesaid show cause was filed on 6.5.2000. The respondent vide Memo No. 28 dated 3.4.2000 sanctioned 90% pension to be paid to the petitioner with effect from 1.6.1998, but no order regarding promotion of the petitioner was passed and left the matter to be decided by the Director (Treasury), who was controlling officer prior to 25.1.1999. Without examining any witness and without exhibiting the documents the respondent passed order withholding the pension of the petitioner permanently as well as directing that for suspension period petitioner shall not get anything other than subsistence allowance. This order contained in Memo No. 10998 (Esst) Dumka dated 13.8.2001 was passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Dumka on 6.8.2001, vide order No. 170 of 2001. It will not be out of place to say that entire proceeding is based on documentary evidence but the impugned order has been passed in absence of any documentary evidence what to speak of supply of document to the petitioner. Further explanation of the petitioner with regard to charge Nos. 3, 4 and 5 has not been considered and on the basis of presumption only that huge amount of money has been illegally withdrawn from the Treasury. The petitioner has been punished, although the petitioner has tried to show that he had done only the things which are excepted of an Accountant and he has quoted several rules under which duty of the Accountant is only to check and pass the bills and not to verity from the department concerned whether any allotment has been received from the allotting authority and whether bills are genuine or not because it is the duty of Drawing and Disbursing Officer to see that no bill beyond the amount of allotment is sent to Treasury. Treasury till then had no authority to verify whether allotment has been sent by State Government or sanctioning authority and now a provision has been made that a copy of allotment order is also sent to the treasury so that Treasury may verify that the bill which has been submitted is within the limit of the allotment.