Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 367 (PAT)

Ramesh Singh Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2006-04-22

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2006
Judgment Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. 1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing Memo Nos. 267, 268, 270, 271 and 272 all dated 2.4.2003 issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer Rural Employment Programme. Bhojpur at Ara as contained in Annexure-1 series by which he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,07 (sic) in that office and also for quashing the subsequent letters issued under Annexure-2 series, Annesure-3 series and Annexure-4 series which are in the same terms. 2. The petitioner was an Assistant Engineer, National Rural Employment Programme, Bhojpur at Ara and during the financial year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 he was made incharge of certain Schemes under the M.P. Local Area Development sanctioned by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara. On the completion of some of the schemes it was found that excess payment has been made by the petitioner whereas the full amount of work has not been done. It appears that the notices were issued to the petitioner to be present during the inspection and enquiry and according to the petitioner he was associated in the enquiry of only three out of the six schemes. However, subsequently by the impugned order he has been straight away directed to make payments of the aforesaid amount failing which criminal case has been threatened to be instituted against him and action for realisation of the said amount through Public Demand Recovery proceedings are to be taken. 3. The contention of Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders have been issued without any proceeding even for inflicting minor punishment in terms of the civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 having been initiated and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the charges against him. He has further contended that he alone is being penalised for the entire loss although it is clear even from Annexure-D, which is letter dated 4.9.2003 of the District Magistrate Bhojpur at Ara, that irregularities in the implementation of the schemes have been committed by the then Executive Engineers as well as three Junior Engineers against all of whom including the petitioner, it had been recommended to start departmental proceedings. However, without initiating departmental proceedings against any of the persons the entire amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner alone. 4. However, without initiating departmental proceedings against any of the persons the entire amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner alone. 4. Learned J.C. to G.P. No. 6, however, relying upon the counter affidavit states that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry that was conducted by the District Magistrate and he being the person to whom the fund had been given, the direction had been given to him to refund the said amount. He has further stated that the enquiry having been made in presence of the petitioner and the measurement have also been taken before him, he had been held responsible for the loss incurred. Since he had to execute the said work and he was responsible for the loss of the said amount he is held liable to refund the same. However, he could not point out as to what action has been taken by the State pursuant to Annexure-D, the letter of the District Magistrate Bhojpur at Ara. He was also unable to satisfy the Court that a proper show cause had been issued to the petitioner giving him opportunity to reply to the charges levelled against him. By issuing notice for recovery he has inflicted minor punishment under the provision of Rule 49(iv) of the C.S. (C.C. & A.) Rules. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several decision of the Supreme Court, especially in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. V/s. Lakshmi Shankar Prasad reported in -. In the said Judgment it has been laid down that it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority not only to call for an explanation from a delinquent for after consideration of the explanation given by him to the charges levelled against him, the disciplinary authority is required to record a finding about his guilt and record the reasons for arriving at such conclusion before the order of punishment is passed against him for inflicting minor punishment. There is fore in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and from the facts and pleadings on the record it is evident that no procedure as laid down in Rule 55-A of the said Rules has been followed in the present case. 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders aforementioned are quashed. There is fore in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and from the facts and pleadings on the record it is evident that no procedure as laid down in Rule 55-A of the said Rules has been followed in the present case. 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders aforementioned are quashed. It is however made clear that the respondent authorities are free to take further action in accordance with law in the matter.