Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 577 (PAT)

Boudhu Thakur v. State Of Bihar

2005-07-04

R.N.PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. The petitioner was a Panchayat Sewak of Salkhua Panchayat of Rohtas District. He was allotted some scheme and for its execution advance was given to him but the work could not be completed and as such a proceeding was initiated against him, the charges were framed and served on him, he filed show cause in his defence, the enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority that the charges were not established, Annexure-3 series. However, the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the enquiry report ordered a fresh enquiry, the fresh enquiry was started and the petitioner participated in the same, the enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority holding that Rs. 30,000/- is recoverable from the petitioner, Annexure4, the disciplinary authority passed order contained in letter dated 25th of July, 1994 holding that Rs. 70,372/- is recoverable from the petitioner and directed him to deposit 50% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 35,186/- in one lump sum and rest in 20 monthly equal instalments with a further stipulation that at the time of vacating the suspension, order of punishment shall be passed, Annexure-5, subsequently, the suspension was vacated and punishment order was passed stopping two annual increments with cumulative effect, censure, for the period of suspension nothing shall be paid to the petitioner except the subsistence allowance vide order dated 21.12.1997, Annexure-7, the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, Koshi Division Saharsa which was rejected with a direction to the District Panchayat Officer to calculate interest over the due amount from the date of advance given to the petitioner till the date of recovery and initiate a proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act for recovery of the said amount of interest, Annexure 11. The petitioner has challenged Annexures 5, 7 and 11 in this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein stand has been taken that for the misconduct of the petitioner, the proceeding was initiated in which he was found guilty and as such Rs. 70,372/- was ordered to be recovered. The petitioner has challenged Annexures 5, 7 and 11 in this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein stand has been taken that for the misconduct of the petitioner, the proceeding was initiated in which he was found guilty and as such Rs. 70,372/- was ordered to be recovered. The other punishment order was passed at the time of vacating the suspension order, as indicated above, and the appellate authority has also rejected the appeal of the petitioner with a further direction to realise interest over the amount advanced to the petitioner from the date of advance given to him till the date of its recovery by initiating a proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act. In nutshell the stand of the respondents is that since the petitioner has committed misconduct, the orders of punishment are correct. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, contended that in the enquiry the petitioner was found guilty and it was held that only Rs. 30,000/- was recoverable from him but Rs. 70, 372/- has been recovered from the petitioner without stating the reason of difference with the enquiry report and giving notice to him. At the time of vacating the suspension further punishments have been inflicted on him and even at the time of rejecting the appeal against the aforesaid orders the appellate authority directed recovery of interest over the due: amount from the date of its advance till the recovery by initiating a proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act thour there was no such charge. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders of punishment. 4. On consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and the material available on the records this much is obvious that in the enquiry only Rs. 30,000/- was found to be recoverable from the petitioner but the disciplinary authority without assigning any reason of difference with the enquiry report and without notice to the petitioner recovered Rs. 70,372/-. The petitioner was also awarded punishment at the time of vacating the order of suspension i.e. censure and stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and that he will not be paid anything except the subsistence allowance. 5. 70,372/-. The petitioner was also awarded punishment at the time of vacating the order of suspension i.e. censure and stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and that he will not be paid anything except the subsistence allowance. 5. The law is well settled that if the disciplinary authority differs from the enquiry report it has to assign reason of difference and serve notice to the aforesaid effect to the delinquent but in the instant case nothing of the kind has been done. Furthermore, .the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal directed to calculate interest over the due amount from the date of payment of advance till the recovery of the said amount and recover the interest by initiating a proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act though there was no such charge. Furthermore, it appears that stage to stage the punishment has been awarded/enhanced 6. Thus, I find that the authorities have committed error in passing the orders of punishment without assigning any cogent reason. Accordingly, the orders under challenge contained in Annexures 5, 7 and 11 are hereby quashed and the writ petition is disposed of. 7. However, the disciplinary authority is directed to proceed with the proceeding afresh from the stage of difference with the enquiry report after giving notice to show cause to the petitioner and pass order in accordance with law. 8. However, the consequence of the qashing of the orders shall be subject to the final order passed by the authority concerned in accordance with law.