Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 966 (JHR)

Flying Officer, A. K. Das v. State Of Bihar

2002-09-04

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body2002
JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner served Indian Air Force from the year 1965 to 1970 and thereafter was released therefrom on medical grounds. He was re-employed on non- gazetted post as Secretary, Zila Sainik Board and was posted at Chaibasa in the year 1981. Later on such post was up-graded from non-gazetted to gazetted Class- II with effect from 1.1.1984. At the time of joining on the post of Secretary on 20.4.1981, his pay scale was revised in new pay scale of Rs. 850-1360/- as basic pay, which was higher than the last pay drawn by him, so the petitioner was not entitled to take the pay fixation benefit. As per Bihar Service Code, there was no provision for counting former services of the petitioner. 2. On the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum at Chaibasa, on various charges levelled against the petitioner he was suspended in contemplation of: the departmental proceeding. A departmental proceeding was initiated, against him and was concluded holding him guilty all the charges. Petitioners behaviour and working always created problems to the department as well as he made so many financial irregularities. 3. A criminal case was also filed against the petitioner for defalcation of Government money. He was compulsorily retired on 28.9.1991. He did not file any representation/appeal against the said order. However, after lapse of one and half years the present Writ application was filed by him. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit, inter alia stating therein that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of pay fixation because his last pay was lower than the pay scale of the post in which he had drawn his pay. He never got any financial loss in connection with his seniority. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the writ application directly against the order of petitioners compulsory retirement, without exhausting his remedy of statutory appeal and representation. 5. In the supplementary affidavit dated 14.12.1993 the petitioner gave details of the list of documents filed before the Disciplinary Authority to defend the charges, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application and further in the supplementary affidavit filed on 28.1.1977 gave details of charges and answers thereto. 6. In the criminal cases filed against him he was acquitted. 7. It appears that although the petitioner had suspended a clerk-Sri. 6. In the criminal cases filed against him he was acquitted. 7. It appears that although the petitioner had suspended a clerk-Sri. S.S. Dhar after obtaining order of the Deputy Commissioner, but did not frame any charge against him according to the rules and did not pay any subsistence allowance to him during his suspension period inspite of the direction of the Sainik Welfare Directorate, Deputy Commissioner, Singbhum as well as Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. He had collected Rs. 21.101/-@ Rs. 125/- each from the ex-servicemen for the purpose of establishment of Retired Sainik Multipurpose Cooperative Society, Chaibasa and kept the said amount in personal use for two years. No such Cooperative Society was formed and after the complaint made in this regard, in March, 1995, he deposited the said amount in Punjab National Bank, Chaibasa. Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, allotted him a requisitioned house for his residence, but he did not pay any rent therefor, afterwards he had issued a Cheque for Rs. 3.-000/-, which was also bounced. A sum of Rr. 5,000/- received by him for the purpose of furnishing the rest house of District Sainik Welfare Office, Chaibasa, was utilised for his personal requirement. During the period of suspension, in disobedience of the directions of the department, he never put his attendance in the Attendance Register. Without obtaining permission he had purchased electrical goods worth Rs. 3002.25 from local market and did not submit-original voucher thereof. There was no allotment for purchasing those electrical goods. He had also appointed one Devendra Nath Sawaiya as night-guard un-authorisedly and contrary to Government rules. 8. The Disciplinary Authority found that the charges relating to dereliction of duties, doubtful integrity, defalcation of Government money and indiscipline were proved against the petitioner and as such he was compulsorily retired from service. It was also held that for the suspension period he will not be entitled to any additional amount, except the admissible subsistence allowance. 9. 8. The Disciplinary Authority found that the charges relating to dereliction of duties, doubtful integrity, defalcation of Government money and indiscipline were proved against the petitioner and as such he was compulsorily retired from service. It was also held that for the suspension period he will not be entitled to any additional amount, except the admissible subsistence allowance. 9. In my opinion, the explanation of the aforesaid charges given by the petitioner that Sri Dhar was not a confirmed employee and he did not follow the procedure of withdrawal of the demand at call receipt relating to his subsistence allowance, a criminal case was filed against him by the President of Ex- servicemen over the issue of collection of fund for the Cooperative Society and implicating the petitioner as accused ended in acquittal, he had already paid a sum of Rs. 3800/- by cheque which was returned by the bank un-cashed and, ultimately, a rental of the requisitioned house was paid in Execution Case No. 11 of 1990, in the bank draft register a sum of Rs. 5000/- was no doubt mentioned, but the said entry was signed by unknown person and there was nothing to show that actually the petitioner had received the said amount, the charge that the petitioner had not signed the attendance register during his suspension period was framed to justify the non-payment of subsistance allowance to him, since there was no allotment order available for purchasing electrical goods worth Rs. 3082.25, the Treassury Officer would not have passed the bills and, therefore, the original voucher was not produced, purchase of electrical goods on personal credit by the petitioner did not amount to any charge, when it was done for betterment of the office, appointment of night guard, who was schedule tribe, was done by the petitioner for the office security on temporary basis on the order of the Deputy Commissioner, were rightly not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and he was punished as aforesaid. 10. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order dated 28.9.1001 (Annexure-1), whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service and was held not entitled to any further amount, except the subsistance allowance, for the period he was under suspension. 11. In the result, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed, but without costs.