Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 30 (JHR)

Rameshwar Mishra v. State of Bihar

2012-01-05

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2012
ORDER Prashant Kumar, J.This writ application has been filed for quashing of Annexure-9 whereby Respondent No. 2 inflicted punishment of censure upon the petitioner and directed to recover Rs. 51,000/- from his salary. 2. It appears that at the relevant time, petitioner was posted as Nazir of Karra block. On 08.03.1990, he went to State Bank of India, Khunti, for encashment of salary, pension and other expenses of employees of Karra Block and he encashed Rs. 51,938.65 paise from Bank. Thereafter he was returning on a Jeep belonging to Karra hospital. In the way, Rs. 51,000/- kept in a cotton bag were looted by miscreants. It appears that in relation to aforesaid incident petitioner lodged a first information report in Karra police station. It further appears that later on petitioner was charge-sheeted vide Annexure-5 and a departmental proceeding initiated against him. It appears that initially Sri J. Toppo Executive Magistrate, appointed as enquiry officer and he after enquiry found that petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty. However he exonerated him from other charges. Thereafter another enquiry held by Deputy Collector, Law Section and he held that petitioner is guilty for the charge of negligence of duty only. 3. It appears that initially Respondent No. 2 inflicting punishment of stoppage of two increments of petitioner and recovery of Rs. 51,000/- from his salary. Aforesaid order challenged by petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2769 of 1994 (R) and same was quashed on the ground that Respondent No. 2 had not applied his mind and inflicted punishment upon petitioner on being suggested by A.D.M. & Deputy Collector. However in that case liberty given to Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Respondent No.-2) to pass fresh order after considering all the materials available on record. 4. In view of the directions in C.W.J.C. No. 2769 of 1994(R), Deputy Commissioner passed another order as contained in Annexure-9 and inflicted punishment of censure and recovery of Rs. 51,000/- from petitioner. Annexure-9 is impugned in this writ application. 5. It is submitted by Sri A.S. Dayal, learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was exonerated by both enquiry officers from all the charges except the charge of negligence of duty. Under the said circumstance, it is not open for the Deputy Commissioner to held him guilty for the charge that he connived with accused persons for the loot of government money. Under the said circumstance, it is not open for the Deputy Commissioner to held him guilty for the charge that he connived with accused persons for the loot of government money. It is submitted that Deputy Commissioner has not assigned any special reason for coming to such conclusion. Accordingly, it is submitted that order impugned cannot be sustained. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Srijit Choudhary, G.A. submits that it is open for the disciplinary authority to differ from the findings of enquiry officer. He submits that it manifests from impugned order that Respondent No. 2 after considering the materials available on record has come to the conclusion that petitioner is involved in the loot of government money. It is submitted that Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No.-2) dealt with evidence collected during enquiry and assigned reason for coming to aforesaid conclusion. Accordingly, Government Advocate submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. It is well settled that disciplinary authority can differ with the findings of enquiry officer, provided he assigned reason for such difference of opinion. In the instant case, impugned order reveals that Respondent No. 2 considered all the evidences collected during enquiry and come to the conclusion that petitioner is involved in the loot of government money. He further found that petitioner is also guilty of the charge of dereliction of duty. Thus, Respondent No. 2 had given a reason for coming to such findings. Under the said circumstance, I find no illegality in the impugned order. It further appears that disciplinary authority i.e. Respondent No. 2 has taken lenient view while inflicting punishment on petitioner. In that view of the matter also, I am not inclined to interfere with impugned order. 8. I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, same is dismissed.