HIRA LAL JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents. Counter affidavit has been filed.

(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the impugned order of dismissal passed by respondent No. 2, contained in order No. 92 of 2001 communicated to the petitioner, vide Memo No. 533/Estt, dated 14.9.2001 (Annexure 10) whereby and whereunder respondent No. 2 has been pleased to dismiss the petitioner along with two others.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner issued receipt for Basu Lodge for the period 1993 -94, but prior to that two others Halka Karamchari had already issued receipts and, thereof, he was not guilty or he was not responsible because two others Halka Karamchari had already issued receipt and there was no such entry in Register II that the house in question has vested in the State of Bihar, although with the death of owner of the Lodge vested in the State, but there was no such entry in Register II and in course of deposition one Block Development Officer, who deposed in the year 1995 said that he has got no information that this Lodge has vested in the State. It was further pointed out that charge -sheet was served with respect to negligence and issuing rent receipt for the year 1993 -94. But finding is based against the Halka Karamchari on the dereliction of duty in respect of previous place of posting such as non - submission of the rent receipts and other things and on the basis of those allegations also punishment has been provided, although that those allegations a separate charge -sheet should have been issued and show cause called for but no such procedure was adopted and, therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer based on those allegations for which no charges were framed or show cause was called for. Hence, this dismissal order is vitiated in law.