AMERICAN RAVIDAS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 22.08.2014 by which two increments of the petitioner has been stopped and for direction upon the respondents not to give effect memo dated 22.08.2014.

(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that the petitioner while posted as B.D.O in Simdega block, it is alleged that an amount of Rs. 10,23,600.00 was sanctioned for digging 12 ponds @ Rs. 85,300.00. The allegation against the petitioner is that though the petitioner being B.D.O had withdrawn the said amount but the Additional Collector in his investigation did not find any record of those 12 ponds. Basing on these allegation, the petitioner was placed under suspension and show cause was served upon him, to which, he replied vide letter dated 21.03.2006. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was set in motion which led to passing of impugned order of punishment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the amount in question i.e. fund under the heading 2245 (Disaster Management) was diverted to another head (Indira Awas) and relating documents and registers were taken away by the then Nazir, Biju Baraik, who remain absconded, hence, the petitioner lodged F.I.R being Simdega P.S. Case No. 40 of 2005 against him. It has further been submitted that considering the reply and documents available on record, the Enquiry Officer has found no ground to prove the charges against the petitioner regarding embezzlement of government money rather noted that it is a case of some negligence and further opined that petitioner is not liable for embezzlement of government money in question till the submission of charge-sheet against said Biju Baraik in Simdega P.S. Case No. 40 of 2005 and accordingly said departmental proceeding was kept in abeyance, as evident from letter dated 09.12.2009 (Annexure 5). But all of a sudden, the petitioner was supplied letter dated 11.04.2014 by which the petitioner was directed to submit second show cause reply, to which, the petitioner replied, but without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order of punishment was slapped upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority has not given any reason for difference/disagreement with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which renders the impugned order bad in law as per decision enunciated in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors Vs. Kunj Behari Misra as reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84.