Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 465 (JHR)

Mod Narayan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-13

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2010
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, who was a Junior Engineer at the relevant time, has challenged the Order dated 28.4.2005 (Annexure-6) issued by the Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand-Respondent No. 3 awarding punishment of recovery of Rs. 6.50 Lakhs from his salary and if the entire amount is not recovered during his service period, then the balance amount be recovered from his retiral benefits after his retirement. The petitioner was further awarded the punishment of stopping of two increments with cumulative effects. 3. The facts in short are that in December 1989 the petitioner was transferred from the Works Division, Birpur to Minor Distribution Division, Balua. Accordingly, the petitioner gave his joining on 30th April, .1990 at the transferred place. In the year 1994, he was transferred to Dalbhum, Jamshedpur. 4. On 25.5.1998, the petitioner received a letter as contained in Annexure-1 under the signature of the Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar that while he was posted at Birpur in the year 1997, he was In charge of Koshi Canal Division, Bhimnagar alongwith yard and Godown. It was alleged that during inspection, it was found that iron rods worth Rs.10 Lacs, were illegally removed from the Godowns, therefore, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply. 5. The petitioner replied to the said allegations denying the charges against him. Not being satisfied with the show-cause filed by the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for the charges that while posting as Junior Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Division, Bhimnagar, he was handed over the charge of goods transferred from Koshi Canal Division, Bhimnagar alongwith store-yard and Godown, During his posting as such, he was incharge of store-yard, godown. On a planned conspiracy, he misappropriated 119.071 Metric Tonnes of Iron Rod costing about Rs.13.00 Lacs and thereby caused loss to the Government. 6. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceedings and the evidences were adduced and on conclusion thereof, Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report holding the charges against the petitioner to be established. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, after examining the inquiry report, passed an order as contained in Annexure-4 by which the following punishments were awarded to the: Petitioner: - (I) Recovery of a sum of Rs. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, after examining the inquiry report, passed an order as contained in Annexure-4 by which the following punishments were awarded to the: Petitioner: - (I) Recovery of a sum of Rs. 6.50 Lacs from the salary of the petitioner and anticipating that if the said amount is not recovered during his service period, then the same may be recovered from his retiral benefits. (II) Stoppage of two increments. (III) Stoppage of posting on his efficiency for seven years. 7. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 2960 of 2001 mainly on the ground that the State of Bihar had no jurisdiction to pass any order against the petitioner since he was posted within the State of Jharkhand. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Order dated 10.3.2003 as contained in Annexure-5 and the order of punishment awarded by the Government of Bihar was quashed but liberty was given to the State of Jharkhand to proceed against the petitioner from the stage where the impugned order was passed. It was also directed to the authorities to consider the second show-cause of• the petitioner. 8. Thereafter, the Government of Jharkhand, on receipt of relevant paper from the State of Bihar, examined the matter and on examination of facts and circumstances of the case, passed an order contained in Annexure-6 whereby the petitioner was awarded the punishment already stated in the earlier paragraphs. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in this writ petition. 9. The main contention of the petitioner is that the godown, from where the alleged iron rod was found missing, was not in the charge of the petitioner and as a matter of fact, some other person was incharge of said Godown from where the alleged iron rods were stolen away causing loss to the State Government. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-6, I find that the show-cause filed by the petitioner was taken into consideration and his defence was also considered and, thereafter, on the basis of the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry proceedings, it was found that the charges against. The petitioner was found to be established and, thereby, punishment was awarded to him. 11. The petitioner was found to be established and, thereby, punishment was awarded to him. 11. The question as to whether the Godown from which the alleged iron rod was found to be stolen away or misplaced or was under the charge of some other person or was in the charge of the petitioner, is the question of fact and matter of evidence. It appears that on the basis of the materials and evidence on record, which were adduced in course of the inquiry, it was held that the whole campus including the Godown was under the charge of the petitioner and, therefore, this finding of fact cannot be questioned in this writ petition. I find no merit in the submissions made by the petitioner. 12. Lastly, it was submitted that the punishment awarded against the petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to the charge. 13. I am not convinced with the said submission of the counsel for the petitioner in view of the gravity of the offence and the amount of loss caused to the State. In my view the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was perfectly justified and proportionate to the charge established against the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, Consequently, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.