Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1043 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Sita Ram Yadav

2013-08-23

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2013
ORDER Re. Interlocutory Application No. 5080 of 2012. Delay of 97 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 872 of 2013. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th December 2012 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 19690 of 2012, the respondent State of Bihar has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 3. The respondent - writ petitioner, a Block Development Officer at Pandaul, Madhubani, was alleged to have committed certain financial irregularity in distribution of funds for the Indira Awas Project amongst the flood affected people below the poverty line. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner on 10th February 2007. Under the memorandum of charge it was alleged that in 2004 the petitioner, then the Block Development Officer, had been allocated a sum of Rs. 2,37,50,000/- for distribution under the Indira Awas Project to the families living in eleven flood ravaged panchayats. The petitioner, however, made distribution of the funds amongst 950 beneficiaries in 26 panchayats. The writ petitioner thus diverted the funds meant for 11 panchayats to the 15 panchayats which were not covered under the Project. The petitioner was thus alleged to have committed a gross financial irregularity. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 21st June 2010. He did not record a clear finding of guilt in respect of any of the eight charges framed against the petitioner; although he did find that the funds were diverted to the beneficiaries who were not entitled to the said benefit. The enquiry officer also found that the proposal made by the writ petitioner was also approved by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as by the District Magistrate although they should not have approved such proposal. He did record that it was a case of financial irregularity committed equally by the Sub Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate. The writ petitioner had not committed the said irregularity for personal gain. Pursuant to the said report made by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, under his order dated 28th July 2011 imposed the punishment of ‘censure’ and of ‘withholding of three increments without cumulative effect’ upon the writ petitioner. The petitioner preferred a review petition before the State Government. The same came to be rejected under Resolution dated 22nd February 2012. 4. The petitioner preferred a review petition before the State Government. The same came to be rejected under Resolution dated 22nd February 2012. 4. The challenge to the aforesaid order of punishment has succeeded before the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 19690 of 2012. The learned single Judge has held that when the proposal made by the writ petitioner was approved by the superior officers the writ petitioner cannot be held guilty. Consequently, the learned single Judge has set aside the order of punishment and the order dated 22nd February 2012 made by the State Government. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar has appeared for the appellants. He has vehemently submitted that the writ petitioner had committed financial irregularity which justified the order of punishment. The learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the same. He has further submitted that neither the Sub Divisional Officer nor the District Magistrate were competent to approve the list of beneficiaries submitted by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, therefore, cannot be absolved of the liability for financial irregularity committed by him. 6. We do appreciate that the writ petitioner did commit a financial irregularity although he was not alleged to have committed such irregularity for personal gain. Every government officer is supposed to function within the framework of the rules and regulations framed by the State Government; more particularly when it comes to finance. We do not propose to say that any financial irregularity should be ignored. 7. However, in the present case, neither the enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority recorded a clear finding of guilt against the writ petitioner before the order of punishment was made against the writ petitioner. In absence of a clear finding recorded by the enquiry officer, it was the duty of the disciplinary authority to at least record a finding of guilt against the writ petitioner. There is no gainsaying that the disciplinary authority did not record his own finding of guilt against the writ petitioner. In absence of such finding, if the learned single Judge has, in exercise of the discretion conferred upon him, considered it expedient to set aside the order of punishment made against the writ petitioner, we do not propose to interfere with the same. 8. For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is dismissed in limine.