LAWS(JHAR)-2019-8-141

BIHARIJI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On August 28, 2019
Bihariji Mishra Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Shahi, the learned A.C. to A.A.G. appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 29.03.2008 by which order of recovery of amount of Rs. 3,14,200/- from the petitioner has been made and two increments from the salary of the petitioner has been ordered to be withheld with cumulative effect.

(3.) Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner assumed charge of Minor Distribution, Sub-Division No. 2, Ghatshila, Galudih in the District of Singhbhum on 01.03.1997. The petitioner was show-caused vide Memo No. 2991 dated 29.07.2005 wherein charge of purchasing cement without requirement was made against him. It was alleged that the petitioner has requisitioned in total 6,000 bags of cement by which only 632 bags of cement were actually used and rest 5,368 bags of cement remained unutilized. As the same has been purchased without need and subsequently the said cement became set and was, thus, spoiled and became unusable, the petitioner made representation on 01.08.2005 disputing and denying the allegation against the petitioner. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer has found that the charge against the petitioner has been proved. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel assailed the impugned order on the ground that inspite of the request made by this petitioner for supply of the document, the document has not been supplied to the petitioner. He further submits that no enquiry proceeding whatsoever was ever initiated, conducted or held inasmuch as no date of hearing or any date for presentation of document or explanation was ever notified or held by the enquiry officer. He submits that based on his reply the impugned order has been passed and according to him there is violation of principle of natural justice. To substantiate his argument, he has relied in the judgment rendered in the case of "Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India" reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427. Paragraph nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: