Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 4 (JHR)

Jura Oraon v. State Of Bihar

2000-05-10

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2000
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against penal order contained in memo No. 860 dated 5th July, 2000, whereby the respondents inflicted the punishment of censure recovery of l/3rd value of stores stolen articles from the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,30,911/- in 30 installments @ Rs. 4864/-per month. 2. As the case can be disposed of an short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, claim and counter claim of the parties, except the relevant one. 3. While the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer. Mechanical Subdivision, Bokaro, certain theft took place at the Baldih Pahar of Public Health and Engineering Department. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally under Rule 55 of the Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal, Rules. 1930. Charge-sheet was communicated, vide Government Resolution contained in Memo No. 852 dated 9th Sept.. 1996 and day-to-day enquiry was held. After the enquiry the petitioner was not informed of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the impugned punishment order was passed, vide Memo No. 860 dated 5th July, 2000. 4. The counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions to assail the order of punishment:-- (i) The charge being vague, the petitioner cannot be punished for vague charges; (ii) The proceeding having initiated under Rule 55 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, even if a minor punishment of recovery is passed, the authorities should have supplied the copy of enquiry report before issuance of order of punishment; and (iii) Even if the impugned order contained in Memo No. 860 dated 5th July. 2000 is treated as a minor punishment, the respondents should have considered the matter in proper aspect after appropriate application of mind in terms with rule 55A of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. 5. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of Patna High Court in Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 1983 BBCJ 33, wherein the Court deprecated the mechanical acceptance of report without active application of its mind. 6. Inspite of time allowed, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents till date. The allegation as made in the writ petition, stands uncontroverted, 7. Rabindra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 1983 BBCJ 33, wherein the Court deprecated the mechanical acceptance of report without active application of its mind. 6. Inspite of time allowed, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents till date. The allegation as made in the writ petition, stands uncontroverted, 7. From the charge-sheet, contained in Resolution dated 9th September, 1996 (Annexure-4), it will be evident that five charges were revealed against the petitioner, all related to common incident of thefts, which took place one after another. 8. All the five charges are vague and not specific. For example, in charge No. (i), it was alleged that in the same establishment on interval of time, theft took place continuously but no full proof and adequate arrangement of security made by petitioner Sri Oraon which caused loss to the State exchequer to the tune of Rs. 4,75,860/-. It was alleged that the aforesaid acts show that the petitioner cooperated in causing theft which amounts to dereliction and negligence of duty. 9. In none of the charges, the details of theft stated. Neither the date of theft shown, nor the time of theft shown in the charge-sheet. It has also not been made clear as to how the petitioner was connected with such theft, if he was not the Store Keeper. There is nothing specific stated as to what was the duty of the petitioner vis-a-vis the Store from which the theft took place nor any other detail shown. 10. In the aforesaid background, all the five charges being vague, the respondents should not have punished the petitioner for such vague charges. 11. In view of aforesaid finding, it is not necessary to decide the rest of the Issues, as raised by the petitioner. The punishment of recovery and censure as made vide Memo No. 860 dated 5th July. 2000 being passed on vague charges are set aside. 12. If any amount already recovered from the salary of the petitioner, the respondents will refund it within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition is allowed.