RABINDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8th October, 1992 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka in Departmental Proceeding No. 26 of 1989. contained in Annexure -5, and also for quashing the order of the appellate authority dated 15th October, 1993 passed by the Director General & Inspector General of Police, Bihar, contained in Annexure -7, and further for a direction on the respondents to pay arrears of salary, treating him in continuous service.

(2.) IT has been stated that while the petitioner was working as Sergeant at Dumkc, a tender was invited by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Dumka for supply of 500 Newar folding bed/cot. Om Prakash Brothers 8. Sons, Dumka was a tenderer. His tender was accepted and work order was issued by Superintendent of Police, Dumka. According to the term of the said tender, the said firm had to supply 500 'Newar' folding bed/cots on approved rate. A letter to that respect was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka (Annexure -1). On the basis of the said order of the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner being the sergeant wrote to the said firm to supply 500 'Newar' folding bed/cots on approved rate. He supplied the Newar beds/cots. Subsequently, the cots supplied by the contractor were found substandard.

(3.) THE petitioner fifed his written explanation and denied the charges, stating, infer alia, that the Superintendent of Police had taken decision and approved the tender. On the basis of the said decision, the order was placed for supply of cots. On delivery of the cots, the Inspecting Committee inspected the cols and approved the quality by putting signature, though some of the cots were distributed to different police stations. Once the complain about the substandard quality of the cots came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he stopped distribution of the remaining stock of cots. A letter was also issued to the supplier dated 31st November, 1983, asking him to take back the remaining 323 cots. It has been stated that in view of the above, the petitioner at no stage was at fault and the charge is wholly unfounded and baseless. The cots were purchased on the basis of the order of the Superintendent. of Police and it is wholly baseless to allege that the supply was ordered without approval of the comoetent authority.