Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1350 (JHR)

Hardeo Maharaj v. State of Jharkhand

2009-10-29

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Judgment By Court.-The prayer of the petitioner in the writ applications is to quash the impugned order dated 3.10.1995, communicated vide Memo No. 591 dated 5.10.1995 (Annexure-1) and the order dated 17.4.1998, communicated vide Memo No. 579 dated 28.4.1998 (Annexure-2) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the appeal preferred by him against the order of dismissal has been rejected. 2. The petitioner was posted as Jan Sewak in Jaridih Block in the District of Bokaro. While he was posted as such, by an order dated 15.1 .1993 he was suspended from service, on the allegations that he misappropriated all amount of Rs. 44,400/- advanced to him for distribution, amongst the old age pensioners. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against him. After receipt of the charges, he filed his representation/show cause. The charges against the petitioner were found to be proved in the departmental proceeding and, thereafter; the Disciplinary Authority by an order contained in Annexure-1 dated 5.10.1995, dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal against the said order of dismissal, which was also dismissed by a detailed order contained in Annexure-2 dated 28.4.1998. 3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed against the petitioner was violative of the principle of natural justice since no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. He further submitted that the departmental enquiry was held only in one day and it was nothing but the eye wash. Without serving a copy of the enquiry report, he has been dismissed from service. Lastly, he submitted that out of the total alleged defalcation amount of Rs. 44,400/-, he has already deposited RS.15,000/- and, therefore, the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges and is harsh. 4. From the impugned orders, particularly from the appellate order (Annexure-2) it appears that the learned Commissioner has considered the evidence and materials on record in detail. It also appears that the petitioner was given full opportunities to defend himself and the case of the defence has also been noted in the said appellate order. 4. From the impugned orders, particularly from the appellate order (Annexure-2) it appears that the learned Commissioner has considered the evidence and materials on record in detail. It also appears that the petitioner was given full opportunities to defend himself and the case of the defence has also been noted in the said appellate order. The appellate court has stated that the petitioner's story is curious and it is clear that he has encashed two cheques dated 11.11.1992 and 13.11.1992 and kept the money with him till 23.11.1992 without going to the post office for sending it by money orders. The petitioner's story the entire money, kept in his house, was stolen by his son has been disbelieved and has been rejected. 5. It had submitted that no copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. Even if it is accepted that no copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner but nothing has been shown as to how the petitioner was prejudiced due to non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report. It is settled law that unless the incumbent satisfies the Court that non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report has prejudiced him, on that ground the departmental enquiry was only an eye-wash cannot be accepted in view of the fact that he had taken part in the departmental proceeding and he had put his defence and, thereafter, on consideration of the materials and evidence on record, the charges against him ere found to be established and proved. 6. The allegation of violation of principle of natural justice also does not appear to be correct since the petitioner was given full opportunities to show cause by the concerned authorities and, in fact, he fully participated in the departmental enquiry. 7. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, it appears that the petitioner being a Government servant misappropriated and embezzled the fund allotted for distribution amongst the old age pensioners. The old age pensioners have no other source of income and they only depend their livelihood on that meager amount, which is paid to them as old age pension but even that meager amount has been misappropriate and embezzled by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy. The old age pensioners have no other source of income and they only depend their livelihood on that meager amount, which is paid to them as old age pension but even that meager amount has been misappropriate and embezzled by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy. The punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate in any manner rather the same is adequate and proper. 8. In view of the above discussions and findings, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost.