Jharkhand High Court
Arbind Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 13 November, 2017
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 968 of 2009
-------
Arbind Kumar, son of Late Ram Sinhasan Sharma, resident of
village Goind, P.S. Yashri, District Arwal (Bihar), at present posted
as X-ray Technician, Sadar Hospital, Dumka.
... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.The Secretary, Health, Medical, Education and Family Welfare
Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.The Additional Secretary, Health, Medical, Education and Family
Welfare Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
4.The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services Dumka.
5.The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka.
.... ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Ms. Amrita Kumari, J.C to Sr. S.C. I
------
C.A.V on 12.10.2017 Delivered on 13 /11/2017
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter
alia prayed for quashing order as contained in Memo dated
06.12.2008issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 whereby the amount of Rs. 1,13,800/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner.
2. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of X-ray Technician on 12.08.1985 at T.B. Centre at Dumka. While continuing as such, when the petitioner was posted as Senior X-ray Technician in Sadar Hospital, Dumka in the relevant year 2005-06, huge quantity of x-ray materials were purchased, which was expired, for which a departmental proceeding was initiated against the persons responsible for it. In 2 the departmental proceeding, it was ordered that an amount of Rs. 5,69,000/- is to be recovered from the persons who are responsible for the loss suffered to the government. The petitioner, being the senior X-Technician in the Hospital was saddled with the order of recovery of Rs. 1,13,800/-, which is impugned before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only on the requisition made by junior X-ray Technician through the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Dumka, the petitioner gave written consent for requirement of X-ray materials for one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that vide memo dated 16.01.2006, the petitioner was transferred from Sadar Hospital to T.B. Centre, Dumka. Hence, when the articles in question was purchased or received by the hospital, the petitioner was not posted there, which shows that there was no conspiracy or fraud committed by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the disciplinary authority without adhering to the detailed enquiry and without considering the show cause reply in its true spirit, passed the impugned order.
4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the year 2005 only 30 packets of x-ray plates were purchased whereas in the year 2006 on the recommendation of petitioner 400 packets of x-ray plates were purchased resulting into expiry of 302 x-ray packets, which caused loss to government exchequer, hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.
3
5. From perusal of the record, it appears that for disproportionate amount of purchase of x-ray materials in Sadar Hospital, Dumka for the financial year 2005-06, enquiry was made by Regional Deputy Director Health Services, Dumka, who after enquiry submitted report for recovery of amount of Rs. 5,69,000/- from the persons responsible for loss caused to government. Accordingly, against the petitioner, who being the senior technician, having made recommendation of purchase of 400 packets of x-ray plates for the relevant year whereas in previous year only 30 packets of x-ray plates were purchased; order of recovery of Rs. 1,13,000 was passed. From the pleadings made by the parties, it appears that the petitioner has failed to impress upon this Court to make out a case for interference.
6. Moreover, it is quite evident that there has been no procedural irregularity in conducting the disciplinary proceeding. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs Raj Kishore Yadav and Another as reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 at paragraph 4 has held that:
"4. ........ It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquriy officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed..........".
The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another as reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 has held that High Court under Article 226 4 cannot disturb the facts and findings given by the disciplinary authority.
7. Viewed thus, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-