Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1109 (JHR)

Rangnath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2011-12-15

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2011
ORDER By Court: This writ application has been filed for quashing Annexure-8 & 9, whereby it is ordered that 30% of the cost of stolen article i.e. Rs. 93,129/-be recovered from the salary of petitioner on 59 installments at the rate of Rs. 1552/-per month. Besides aforesaid order of recovery, petitioner was also censor for dereliction of duty and it is ordered that the same be entered in his A.C.R. of the year 2002-03. 2. It appears that at the relevant time, petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in Mechanical Sub-Division-I, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Jamshedpur. It then appears that petitioner was also In-charge of UNICEF Store of Gamarhria. It is stated that in the night of 14.02.2003, a theft committed in the aforesaid UNICEF Store and during the said theft some articles were stolen worth Rs. 3,10,431.30. It appears that petitioner was given show cause notice to explain, why 30% of the cost of stolen article be not recovered from his salary? It appears that petitioner gave detail reply, stating therein that keys of aforesaid Store remains with store-keeper namely Paramhans Jha and he is only acquainted with the materials kept in the Store. It is further stated that Superintending Engineer exonerated him from the charge, who conducted internal inquiry and submitted a confidential report to the State Government. Petitioner further stated that Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, while supervising the case, had come to the conclusion that Paramhans Jha is only responsible for missing of articles kept in the Store, because on investigation, it was found that no theft, as alleged in the F.I.R., has been committed. It then appears that the State Government concluded that the petitioner is responsible for the theft committed in the Store and accordingly, vide order dated 10.02.2006 decided to recover that 30% of the cost of stolen articles i.e. Rs. 93,129/-from the salary of petitioner. By the same order, petitioner was also censored and it is ordered that same be entered in his A.C.R. of 2002-03. Annexure-9 reveals that respondent No. 5 decided to recover aforesaid amount of Rs. 93,129/-from petitioner in 59 installments at the rate of Rs. 1552/-per month. 3. 93,129/-from the salary of petitioner. By the same order, petitioner was also censored and it is ordered that same be entered in his A.C.R. of 2002-03. Annexure-9 reveals that respondent No. 5 decided to recover aforesaid amount of Rs. 93,129/-from petitioner in 59 installments at the rate of Rs. 1552/-per month. 3. It is submitted by Sri Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner, that while passing the impugned order, the State Government has not assigned any reason as to how it come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. He then submits that even reply given by the petitioner, in response to show cause notice, has not been reflected in the order. Accordingly, he submits that impugned order clearly shows that the respondents did not apply their mind on the facts and materials produced before it and in mechanical manner passed impugned orders. It is further submitted that a similar order was passed against the Assistant Engineer for recovery of cost of stolen articles to the extent of Rs. 62,082/-. It is submitted that against aforesaid order Assistant Engineer filed a writ application in this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 7651 of 2006. The said writ application disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 05.08.2009 and aforesaid order quashed, with liberty to the State Government to re-examine the matter. It is submitted that the State Government, after re-considering the matter, has come to the conclusion that the Store Keeper Paramhans Jha is only responsible for missing of articles from the Store. Accordingly, by Annexure-12, the Executive Engineer was directed by Superintending Engineer to recover all the amount from Paramhans Jha. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of the State Government, it is submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 4. Sri Srijit Choudhary, learned Government Advocate, after going through Annexure-11 & 12, had fairly stated that since on re-consideration of entire facts and materials the State Government had come to the conclusion that Store Keeper Paramhans Jha was only responsible and an order passed for recovery of entire amount from the aforesaid Paramhans Jha, therefore, it appears that petitioner is not guilty of the charges levelled against him. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. From perusal of Annexure-8, the order dated 10.02.2006, I find that the State Government come to the conclusion that petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. Absolutely, no reason assigned by the State Government for coming to such conclusion. From perusal of impugned order, I further find that in the impugned order even the reply of petitioner has not been reflected. It further appears that the State Government has not considered the confidential report send by Superintending Engineer, as contained in Annexure-5 & 6. Thus, it appears that the order contained in Annexure-8 has been issued in most mechanical manner without application of mind. It is imperative for disciplinary authority to pass an speaking order while coming to the conclusion that delinquent employee is guilty of the charges levelled against him. As in the instant case, no speaking order passed, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. From perusal of supplementary affidavit, it appears that Assistant Engineer, who was also posted in the same Division and superior officer of the petitioner, was also punished for the same charges and an order passed on 10.02.2006 for recovery of Rs. 62,082/-from his gratuity. It then appears that the aforesaid Assistant Engineer filed a writ application vide W.P. (S) No. 7651 of 2006, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2009 and the order of recovery was quashed. However, in that case this Court gave liberty to the State Government to reconsider the matter and pass order in accordance with law. Annexure-11 reveals that State Government, after considering the explanation of Assistant Engineer, passed another order on 21.01.2010 and exonerated him on coming to he conclusion that only the Store-keeper (Paramhans Jha) was responsible for the alleged theft. Annexure-12 shows that the Superintending Engineer has directed the Executive Engineer to recover entire amount from Paramhans Jha, Store-keeper. Thus, in view of aforesaid conclusion of the State Government, petitioner also cannot be held guilty and entitled to be exonerated from the charges levelled against him. 7. In view of the discussions made above, this writ application is allowed. The impugned orders as contained in Annexure-8 & 9 is hereby quashed.