Patna High Court - Orders
Dr.Noorul Ahad vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 May, 2012
Author: T. Meena Kumari
Bench: T. Meena Kumari, Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.570 of 2008
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11657 of 2007
======================================================
Dr.Noorul Ahad, S/o Late Tauhid Hassan, resident of village/Muhalla
Chauhata, Ashok Raj Path, Deep Ganga Apartment, P.S.- Pirbahore, Town
and District- Patna .... .... Petitioner-Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, through Agriculture Production Commissioner,
New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna
2. Board of Directors, through its Secretary, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Ltd.,
Agriculture Complex, Mithapur, Patna
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Ltd., Agriculture
Complex, Mithapur, Patna
4. Chief of Processing/Production-Cum-Conducting Officer, Bihar Rajya
Beej Nigam Ltd., Agriculture Complex, Mithapur, Patna
5. Company Secretary, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Ltd., Agriculture
Complex, Mithapur, Patna .... .... Respondent-Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binay Kanth, Sr. Adv. &
Mr. Sanjay Kumar
For the Beej Nigam : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Surendra Pandey &
Mr. Nalin Vilochan Tiwary, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Krishna Murari Prasad, AC to SC-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI)
16 15-05-2012The present appeal is filed against the order dated 24.06.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 11657 of 2007.
The appellant has questioned the order contained in Annexure-8 in the writ petition whereby the appellant was dismissed from service of Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam (hereinafter called to as Nigam). The appellant is Patna High Court LPA No.570 of 2008 (16) dt.15-05-2012 2 sought for quashing of the said order which was issued under signature of the Managing Director of the Nigam and has further prayed to reinstate him in service along with consequential benefits.
The facts which lead to the filing of the writ petition would go to show that the appellant has joined service of the Nigam as an Assistant in the year 1980, subsequently he was given promotion as Regional Managing, Hajipur. He has also been promoted as Company Secretary-Cum-Chief of Finance. He was also posted as In- charge of the Managing Committee when the post of regular Managing Director was vacant for the period from 03.01.2005 to 20.02.2005. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Chief of Finance which he was holding till the date of dismissal. It is also pertinent to note here that the New Managing Director joined the Nigam on 02.07.2007 and vide order contained in Annexure-1 dated 03.07.2003 the appellant was kept under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding in respect of acts of omission and commission disclosed in the said order. Annexure-2 dated 04.07.2007 is the Memo of charge which has been Annexed to the writ petition. Among all the charges, last charge was to the effect that during year 1988-1991 appellant was Regional Manager, Hajipur and according to audit report an amount of Rs. 1,11,54,762.89 (One Crore Patna High Court LPA No.570 of 2008 (16) dt.15-05-2012 3 eleven lacs fifty four thousand seven hundred sixty two and paise eighty nine only) remained pending as unadjusted advance which amounted to defalcation of public money and the appellant made no efforts for adjustment of the said money disbursed by him as advance.
The appellant has submitted his reply to the show cause notice and on enquiry officer has been appointed to conduct the enquiry to the said charges. The contention raised by the appellant was that some employees were deposited vouchers during enquiry by the C.B.I. but those vouches were remained pending and adjustment had not been made by the Nigam.
In the enquiry report submitted by the conducting officer the appellant was held guilty of all the charges on the basis of admitted statement of the petitioner before the Managing Director.
The last charge with regard to unadjusted advance in concerned, the Enquiry Officer has held guilty to the appellant to be proved by placing reliance on the audit report which remained unchallenged. A second show cause was issued to the appellant and the appellant also replied to the same. The Managing Director considering the second show cause and the enquiry report found the charges against the petitioner proved and he was subjected to the penalty of dismissal vide order dated 17.08.2007. Patna High Court LPA No.570 of 2008 (16) dt.15-05-2012 4
The main contention raised before the learned Single Judge as well as before us is that Managing Director found him not available on the seat at 5:30 P.M. and therefore he has framed a charge of unauthorized absence from duty, but however as it was after office hour, the competent authority need not require to obtain evidence so far as this charge is concerned. From perusal of the enquiry report it appears that there has lack of efficiency to recover the amount, but the lack of efficiency can not amount to misconduct, therefore failure of the appellant to get the advances adjusted cannot be a good charge.
It is contended by learned counsel for the Nigam that the appellant was absent from his seat at 5:30 P.M. and found absent during inspection as he left the office for participating in Radio telecast in the All India Radio without obtaining any permission from the Managing Director. It has been also argued that when the appellant was a Regional Manager at Hajipur, he had given loan to some of the daily wage employee as also to the farmer which remains un-recovered. As per the audit report an amount of Rs. 1,11,54,762.89 (One Crore eleven lacs fifty four thousand seven hundred sixty two and paise eighty nine only) remained pending as unadjusted advance which amount to defalcation of public money due to dereliction of duty of the appellant. As per enquiry report the charges are Patna High Court LPA No.570 of 2008 (16) dt.15-05-2012 5 as follows:-
Þvkjksi la0 1- Jh uq:y vgn fnukad 2-7-07 dks 5%30 cts vijkg~u esa fcuk vuqefr ds dk;kZy; ls vuqifLFkr FksA dk;kZy; ls irk pyk fd os lHHkor% vkdk'kok.kh] iVuk esa dksbZ dk;ZØe esa lfEefyr gq,A 2- fcgkj ljdkjh lsod daMDV la0 76 dks /kkjk 9121 ds vuqlkj fcuk mPpkf/kdkjh dks vuqefr ds dksbZ Hkh ink0@deZ0 jsfM;ks vFkok nzks= esa dksbZ Hkh dk;ZØe esa Hkkx ugha ys ldrs gS] tks Jh vgn n~okjk fd;k x;kA ,slk vkpj.k ljdkjh dehZ ds vuq:i ugha gksrk gSA 3- ,d vU; lafpdk esa tks Jh vgn n~okjk rhu nSfud osruHkksxh ;Fkk Jh ckyfedh 'kekZ jtuh jatu prqosZnh mes'k izlkn dks fu;fer djus dk izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k tcfd vki ljdkj ls vf/klwfpr izca/k funs'kd ugha gS ,oa lHkh fu;qfDr ij ljdkj ds rjQ ls jksd FkkA 4- vkids o"kZ 88&91 esa {ks=h; izca/kd gkthiqj ds :i esa vads{k.k n~okjk 199954762&89 :0 dk vlek;ksftr vfxze izfrosnu fd;k gS tks fcgkj foÙkh; fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj xou dk ekeyk cuk gSA vkius mDr vfxze dks lek;ksftr djus dk dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;kAÞ It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that while dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the contention of the appellant. But however from perusal of the enquiry report it goes to show that the enquiry was conducted according to law. This Court is of the opinion that the charge as with regard to absence at 5:30 P.M. from the office cannot be termed as serious Patna High Court LPA No.570 of 2008 (16) dt.15-05-2012 6 charge. But however the charge as with regard to causing loss to the Nigam amounting to Rs. 1,11,54,762.89 (One Crore eleven lacs fifty four thousand seven hundred sixty two and paise eighty nine only) is a major offence as the same being remained un-recovered after 15 years and therefore it can be termed as the main charge. There is no material placed before this Court by the appellant to the effect that he has tried to recover the amount. The pleading would go to show that the appellant was silent over that charge and has not applied his mind to recover the said amount as per the enquiry report which caused loss of Rs. 1,11,54,762.89 (One Crore eleven lacs fifty four thousand seven hundred sixty two and paise eighty nine only) to the Nigam as the said amount was remained un-recovered by the Nigam.
In the absence of any perversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the Managing Director in dismissing the appellant from service is not found fault.
Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
(T. Meena Kumari, J) (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) P.K./-