Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 171 (JHR)

Satya Narayan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-14

R.K.MERATHIA

body2007
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard. 2. Mr. Krishna appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows. The enquiry report dated 3.7.1996 (Annexure-12) and the order of punishment dated 12.12.1996 (Annexure-16) are illegal as the relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner due to which he could not defend himself effectively. There was nothing before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate the charges No. 1 and 2. Challenging the order dated 5.3.2005 passed by the Forest Department of Government of Bihar, by way of amendment petition (I.A. No. 724 of 2006). he submitted that firstly the Government of Bihar had no jurisdiction to pass order of punishment after creation of Jharkhand and moreover petitioner was not heard before enhancing the punishment. He further submitted that trough criminal case was lodged against 17 employees including the petitioner but departmental proceeding was initiated only against few persons. He further submitted that no order for recovery of money has been passed against Mr. R.P. Bhagat who was posted at Chainpur Depot and against whom there was allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 28 lakhs. State counsel supported the enquiry report and impugned orders. 3. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. There were three charges. The substances of the charges is that the petitioner who was Range Officer of Forest between 22.1.1991 to 2.2.1994 at Gumla Deport and Logging Range under Gumla State Trading Division, in connivance with Mr. A.K. Das, (the then DFO, Gumla State Trading Division) defalcated an amount of Rs. 15,79,718.78. Petitioner took part in the departmental proceeding. He was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. A second show-cause notice was issued to him along with enquiry report as to why he should not be dismissed and monetary loss suffered by the Government be not recovered from him. Ultimately petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.12.1996. It was further ordered that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- defalcated by him and also the proportionate amount of Rs. 13,90,438.01 defalcated in connivance with Mr. A.K. Das (the Divisional Forest Officer) be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of petitioner. 4. Ultimately petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.12.1996. It was further ordered that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- defalcated by him and also the proportionate amount of Rs. 13,90,438.01 defalcated in connivance with Mr. A.K. Das (the Divisional Forest Officer) be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of petitioner. 4. A criminal case under Sections 120B, 409, 407, 468, 471 and 420, IPC was also lodged against several persons including the petitioner being Gumla P.S. Case No. 225 of 1994 in which some of the documents were seized and therefore, those documents could not be supplied to the petitioner but he was given opportunity to inspect the documents available but he did not avail it. Even then before starting the departmental proceeding, the documents which the petitioner wanted to see, were made available for inspection and petitioner made notes from them. The Enquiry Officer has further recorded that petitioner was supplied the documents which were required for his defence. 5. According to the petitioner, the DFO and the Forester were responsible for the defalcation. Admittedly, petitioner was posted at the Forest Depots during the relevant period when the alleged defalcation took place. The Enquiry Officer therefore, found that it cannot be accepted that petitioner had no knowledge about the lifting of timber without payment. He was in between the DFO and the Forester, petitioners defence that he was busy in logging range was also not found satisfactory. The Enquiry Officer found that the charge of connivance was proved. He further found that petitioner tried to escape his liability in a preplanned manner. The defence of petitioner with regard to the second charge, that he was on leave during the relevant period, was not found correct. All the charges were found proved. The Enquiry Officer considered the defence of the petitioner and the records available, for arriving at the said findings. The State of Bihar accepted the report of Enquiry Officer and passed the order of punishment in question. It was made clear that the amount fixed by the Government, out of the amount defalcated by connivance, will be realized from the petitioner. By the subsequent order dated 5.3.2005, only such amount has been fixed. Therefore it cannot be accepted that it was enhancement of the punishment or that the State of Bihar passed order of punishment after creation of State of Jharkhand. By the subsequent order dated 5.3.2005, only such amount has been fixed. Therefore it cannot be accepted that it was enhancement of the punishment or that the State of Bihar passed order of punishment after creation of State of Jharkhand. The other grounds raised by the petitioner in the amendment petition (LA. No. 724 of 2006) are also devoid of merit. The decision of the department to take action against one or other employee, cannot be made a ground for interfering with the order of punishment of the petitioner. In view of the serious nature of the charges proved, the punishment is also not unreasonable or disproportionate. 6. The scope of interference in such matters under writ jurisdiction is limited. I find no illegality or any procedural irregularity in the departmental proceeding and the impugned order. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed and the interim order dated 27.2.1997 stands vacated. No costs.