Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1061 (PAT)

Prabhakar Tripathi v. State Of Bihar

2000-08-30

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2000
Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Memo No.3688 dated 26th May, 1992, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was dismissed from service in pursuance of a departmental proceeding. 2. The brief fact of the case shows that the petitioner, a Store Keeper-cum- Clerk, while posted in Gram Shilp Prashikshan Centre, Sheikhpura was suspended vide order No. 16971 dated 5th October, 1982 and proceeded departmentaliy, vide Memo No. 13644 dated 1st October, 1985. He was charge sheeted, and enquiry conducted and on the basis of the enquiry report; after 2nd show cause notice, the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order dated 26th May, 1992. 3. It appears that the Respondents earlier issued impugned letter no.2843 dated 3rd December, 1981. Therein, giving reference relating to shortage of materials for Rs.14,960.03 p., the petitioner was intimated that his reply had been gone through and it was decided to recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner in the light of Departments letter no. 12383 dated 14th July, 1981. As it was ordered to recover the amount @ Rs.150/- per month, the aforesaid order issued by General Manager, District Industries Centre, Munger, vide letter dated 3rd September, 1981 has also been challenged. 4. In the departmental proceeding, charge was framed and communicated to the petitioner, vide Memo No. 13644 dated 1st October, 1982. Altogether, four charges were levelled against the petitioner. While the 1st charge related to shortage of material worth Rs.14,960.03 p. as was mentioned in the earlier letter, wherein it was informed that only a sum of Rs.1800/- could be recovered and rest of the amount could not be recovered, though the shortage was found, while the petitioner was incharge of the Store. Charge No. 2 related to shortage of material amounting to Rs.1325.97 p., while petitioner was Incharge at Chatra, Hazaribagh, which was earlier recovered. The charge No.3, related to shortage of material for another sum of Rs.5,231.63 p. in respect to the period, the petitioner was posted in the Gram Shilp Prashikshan Kendra, Lakhisarai. The fourth charge related to dereliction of duty and insubordination, after issuance of the order of suspension dated 5th October, 1982. The charge No.3, related to shortage of material for another sum of Rs.5,231.63 p. in respect to the period, the petitioner was posted in the Gram Shilp Prashikshan Kendra, Lakhisarai. The fourth charge related to dereliction of duty and insubordination, after issuance of the order of suspension dated 5th October, 1982. It was alleged that the petitioner, in spite of direction of the superior authority, reminders and oral orders, did not choose to hand over the charge, after suspension to the Incharge Superintendent, Gram Shilp Prashikshan Kendra, Sheikhpura, Munger, though more than two years five months have passed. The resultant effect was non-functioning of the Centre and deterioration of material, as was kept in the Store. 5. According to the petitioner, the charges were baseless. It is alleged that the petitioner though suspended on 5th October, 1982, it was not lifted for more than a decade. The authorities were requested to make available the necessary documents and the details of shortage of articles, but they were never supplied and the enquiry was conducted without any information to the petitioner behind his back. The petitioner was neither noticed nor given opportunity to defend him during enquiry and pleaded innocence in the present case. 6. It is accepted that a 2nd show cause notice was issued on 21st October, 1991 to which the petitioner replied on 27th November, 1991, whereinafter the order of dismissal was issued. 7. The counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on bald statement made by the petitioner that he was not given reasonable opportunity to take part in the enquiry, having not informed about the date of enquiry. It was also pointed out that the relevant documents called for were not supplied. 8. However, the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner cannot be accepted, as no specific pleading was made as to when the petitioner called for records/evidence and which were the dates of enquiry of which no information was given to the petitioner. 9. From the enclosures attached to the writ petition, it will be evident that the Headquarter of petitioner was fixed at District Industries Centre, Munger, while order of suspension was issued. He was asked to hand over the charge to another Officer. 10. 9. From the enclosures attached to the writ petition, it will be evident that the Headquarter of petitioner was fixed at District Industries Centre, Munger, while order of suspension was issued. He was asked to hand over the charge to another Officer. 10. From the charge itself, it will be evident that the petitioner for one or other reason, did not care to take part nor handed over the charge for over two years and five months. For the said reason, the charge sheet was forwarded by registered letter, vide Memo No. 13644 dated 1st October, 1982, as will be evident from Annexure-3. 11. By the aforesaid charge sheet, the petitioner was intimated that one Shri Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, the General Manager, Begusarai was appointed enquiry officer and the petitioner was asked to submit his show cause reply within a month. However, it appears that the show cause reply was filed by the petitioner, for the first time, after eight years of the initiation of proceeding on 29th December, 1990. 12. In the present case, the petitioner has not disclosed as to why he did not choose to file the show cause reply for long eight years, nor it has been stated that the petitioner tried to cooperate in the departmental proceeding. In the show cause reply dated 29th December, 1990, the petitioner never raised the question relating to not giving opportunity in the enquiry, nor raised any grievance relating to non-cooperation by Enquiry Officer. 13. Such grounds have not been taken by the petitioner in the show cause reply, including the 2nd show cause reply, as was filed on 27th November, 1991, l am not inclined to rely on bald statement, as made in the writ petition. 14. The impugned order having passed after issuance of a charge sheet; on the basis of report of Enquiry Officer: after 2nd show cause notice to the petitioner, l find no illegality in the same. 15. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order, as to costs.