Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 238 (PAT)

Md. Gulam Kamruddin v. State

2005-03-02

V.N.SINHA

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Singh, S.C. 9 for the State of Bihar. 2. Petitioner, who substantially held the post of Clerk/Assistant and was a record keeper at the relevant time in the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Saran at Chapra, has filed this application assailing the order bearing memo No. 2724 dated 21.11.2003, annexure-5, whereunder his pension has been reduced to nil in consideration of the report of the enquiry officer whereafter notice bearing memo No. 2281 dated 26.9.2003, annexure-3, was served on him and he submitted his reply thereto dated 19.10.2003, annexure-4, in consideration whereof impugned order dated 1.11.2003 was passed. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order dated 21.11.2003, annexure-5, on the ground that the said order has been passed ignoring the minutes of theenquiry officer recorded under proceedings dated 4.1.2003/30.1.2003, annexure-2, wherefrom it appears that the enquiry officer was not in a position to proceed with the enquiry as the relevant records on the basis of which charges have been set out against the petitioner are in custody of the police authorities/ submitted before the court in which the trial is pending against the petitioner. 3. It may be pointed out that charges were framed against the petitioner alleging that on receipt of illegal gratification petitioner was interpolating the old records of the year 1940 and before kept in the record room as those records were old and torn. On the said allegation criminal case was also registered and few old interpolated records were even seized from the house of one Md. Usman at Siwan. The chargesheet was drawn under the signature of Distt. Sub-Registrar and Registrar, Saran, as also the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna, and was served on the petitioner alongwith the letter No. 796 dated 1.11.2000, annexure-1. Perusal of those charges indeed indicate that the same is serious and affects not only the persons in present but even the generations to come. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that, no doubt, the charges were served on the petitioner under letter dated 1.11.2000 but the documents on the basis of which those charges were framed were never served and that is why enquiry officer in his minutes dated 30.1.2003 recorded that it is not possible to conclude that the petitioner is responsible for the interpolation as the documents were never produced before him. He further submitted that Md. Usman from whose house at Siwan interpolated documents were seized was also not examined in support of the charge. 5. It appears Inspector General of Registration having received the records of the proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer ignoring the observation dated 30.1.2003 issued notice dated 20.6.2003 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he be not held responsible for interpolating the records as the enquiry officer in his proceedings dated 30.1.2003 itself had observed that the petitioner cannot be wholly absolved of the responsibility to preserve the records. In response to the notice dated 26.9.2003 petitioner filed his reply dated 19.10.2003, annexure-4 whereunder once again he submitted that as the documents on the basis of which proceedings have been drawn were not produced before the enquiry officer he rightly concluded in his proceedings dated 30.1.2003 that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for interpolation until conclusion of the criminal trial and made passing observation that petitioner cannot be completely absolved of his responsibility to preserve the records. He further submitted that his pension cannot be withheld on the basis of passing observation of the enquiry officer without the production of the interpolated records and examination of Md. Usman from whose house documents were seized. The Inspector General Registration considered the show cause reply dated 19.10.2003 and passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2003 reducing the pension of the petitioner to nil. 6. Counsel appearing in support of the writ application at this stage submitted that if the petitioner is given the copies of the documents on the basis of which charges have been framed he shall submit his reply explaining to the satisfaction of the authorities that he is not at all responsible for the charges levelled against him as the documents are always kept in the Record Room under double lock and petitioner is never allowed to manoeuver the proceedings in the record from all alone by himself. 7. The impugned order dated 21.11.2003 having been passed without making available the documents on the basis of which charges have been framed against the petitioner as also without recording any evidence including the evidence of Md. Usman as also without giving opportunity to the petitioner to controvert and explain the materials in support of the allegation as such the order dated 21.11.2003 has got to be set aside. Usman as also without giving opportunity to the petitioner to controvert and explain the materials in support of the allegation as such the order dated 21.11.2003 has got to be set aside. It is, accordingly, set aside with direction to the Inspector General of Registration to serve on the petitioner the legible zerox copy of the documents on the basis of which chargesheet dated 20.4.2000 has been drawn. Once those documents are served on the petitioner it shall be open to the Inspector General of Registration to either proceed with the enquiry himself or to depute one of his officers posted in the Secretariat itself to proceed with the enquiry and submit a report. Once the report is submitted the Inspector General of Registration shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after serving a copy of the report on the petitioner with opportunity to challenge the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The documents on the basis of which chargesheet dated 20.4.2000 was framed is either in the custody of the trial court trying the criminal case or with the police the Inspector General of Registration is authorised to procure those documents from the criminal court/police officer with whom the same is available and to obtain legible zerox copy and thereafter to return the documents to the court/officer wherefrom those documents were procured. The enquiry proceedings should be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The petitioner retired on 30.6.2002. Impugned order reducing his pension to nil was passed on 21.11.2003. Accordingly he is entitled to provisional pensions from the period between 30.6.2002 till 21.11.2003 and the pension amount which has already been paid to him until 21.11.2003 should be allowed to be drawn by him as provisional pension. The payment of pension for the period between 21.11.2003 till the date of this order shall depend upon the result of the proceedings but during the period of the proceedings petitioner shall be allowed provisional pension on month to month basis. 9. Application stands disposed of. No cost.