Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1583 (JHR)

Rajendra Paswan v. Union of India

2012-11-02

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
Order Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 2. The writ petitioner is aggrieved against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Bench, at Ranchi dated 1.8.2011 by which O.A. No. 164 of 2008(R) of the writ petitioner has been dismissed by a detailed order. 3. The petitioner was punished in disciplinary proceeding by disciplinary authority with penalty of removal from the service together with the recovery of the pecuniary loss caused to the Government to the tune of Rs. 45,000/- vide order dated 17th August, 2007. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 18.7.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witness namely Shri Shiv Bhagwan Singh, Ex-Chairman, Sairat Remission Committee, Jharkhand, who was having the status of the Minister at that relevant time and to whom the relevant certificates were issued, in his statement in D.E. admitted that he paid the requisite amount for obtaining certificate to one another officer namely B. Prasad and that amount was paid as per prescribed fee for obtaining such certificates. Deputy Director, Sri S. Tirkey admitted in his deposition and stated that he received the request for issuance of certificates which he endorsed to petitioner for further action, copies of the statement of these two 'witnesses have been placed on record at Page Nos. 27 and 146 which clearly indicate that the case against the petitioner was totally false and the charges levelled against the petitioner that he without the receipt of any indent and requisite money for the issue of certificates, issued the certificates. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment imposed has been modified by the appellate authority of compulsory retirement maintaining the recovery of Rs. 45,000/- modifying the penalty of removal from the service also is a harsh punishment and not proportionate to the charges levelled against the writ petitioner. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the writ petitioner and perused the detailed reasons given by the Tribunal in the order dated 1.8.2011. The Tribunal has considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in detail and we are of the considered opinion that in fact the petitioner was rightly held guilty for issuing the certificates unauthorizedly as admittedly the petitioner was not authorized to issue the certificates. The Tribunal has considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in detail and we are of the considered opinion that in fact the petitioner was rightly held guilty for issuing the certificates unauthorizedly as admittedly the petitioner was not authorized to issue the certificates. It appears that the witnesses S. Tirkey and Shri Bhagwan Singh, who was the Chairman of Sairat Remission Committee and having the status of the Minister at that time, both were interested in the writ petitioner, which is apparent from the statement given in detail. We are of the considered opinion that these two witnesses were deeply interested in the writ petitioner. S. Tirkey gave his statement that he received the indent letter from the indenter and such letter is not available in the office record. His statement was contrary to the record of the department. The said witness S. Tirkey stated that he endorsed said indent to the petitioner for necessary action. Since such indent letter is not available, therefore, he could not have endorsed. Assuming for the sake of the argument that S. Tirkey endorsed the indent/request letter to the petitioner, even then, he could not have issued the Certificates himself as he was not authorized to do so. 7. Shri Bhagwan Singh, the then Chairman of the Committee having the status of Minister has stated that he has to introduce himself and he had to give his visiting card also to one B. Prasad. That appears to be unusual way of dealing by the person who was holding the post of the Chairman of the Committee having the status of the Minister. He stated that he gave the requisite money to B.Prasad, but he was not given the receipt. The other facts stated in the statement also makes him totally unreliable witness. 8. We have referred this statement• only because of the reason that the petitioner has tried to show that the petitioner under instruction of the superior authority issued the Certificate and in view of the above reasons, we have mentioned what has been stated by this witness which was not necessary as this Court is not the appellate authority over the orders passed in the disciplinary proceeding. 9. 9. No other evidence has been referred and has not rightly been referred because of the reason that admittedly the petitioner issued the Certificate without any authority of law and there is no material in the office indicating the receipt of any indent letter as well as the deposit of the requisite fees by the person. who sought the Certificate. 10. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this petition, and accordingly, this petition is dismissed.