GORAKH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 3.4.1997, passed by respondent No. 2 inflicting punishment. It has been held in this order that petitioner was absent from 6.6.1990 to 4.11.1990 unauthorizedly and therefore the said period was treated as unauthorized absence and no salary etc. was to be paid for the said period. However, the said period was not to be treated as break in service for the purpose of pension etc. The period from 5.11.1990 to 22.11.1990 was adjusted against the earned leave.

(2.) THOUGH , the report of the Enquiry Officer has not been annexed by the petitioner, a copy has been produced by Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, which has been kept on record. From perusal of the same, it appears that petitioner was given opportunity and he filed his show cause. He was found guilty of the first charge namely disobeying the orders of transfer. With regard to unauthorized absence from 5.11.1990 to 22.11.1990 on account of his transfer, the Enquiry Officer found that the recommendation for treating petitioner on duty during the said period was unjustified and made the case of the petitioner doubtful. However, he opined that petitioner can be given benefit of doubt. The Enquiry Officer did not find him guilty of other charges namely defalcation and keeping the records unauthorizedly.

(3.) IT is settled law that the disciplinary authority is entitled to differ with the findings/recommendations of the Enquiry Officer. The punishment awarded is a minor punishment of non -payment of salary during the period of unauthorised absence from 6.6.1990 to 4.11.1990. Mr. R.S.P. Sinha admitted that petitioner has received amount of earned leave for the period from 5.11.1990 to 22.11.1990.