Jharkhand High Court
Kashi Nath Sahu vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 5 August, 2002
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
ORDER Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The writ petitioner, Kashi Nath Sahu, has challenged the Order dated 16.1.1996 as contained at Annexure 8, passed by the Director, Soil Conservation, Government of Bihar, Patna, by reason whereof the following punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner :
(a) withholding of three annual increments;
(b) recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,315.50 paise from the salary of the petitioner in twenty equal instalments @ Rs. 565/- each; and
(c) no entitlement to any salary during the period the petitioner remained under suspension; and All the three punishments aforesaid were directed to be recorded in Service Book of the petitioner.
3 The facts stated by the petitioner reveals that on 14.4.1991, one Sukhdeo Tudu, a Cashier of the Soil Conservation at Khunti, Ranchi lodged a FIR stating that he was informed by the chowkidar of the village that a Godrej Steel Almirah with cash had been stolen from the office in the night of 13.4.1991. The petitioner has stated that upon the investigation of the criminal case in relation to the aforesaid fact, the police submitted a final form and it was accepted by the trial Magistrate on 11.7.1991. Thereafter, on 8.8.1991, the petitioner was put under suspension initiating departmental proceedings and on 1.8.1992, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. The charge-sheet has been brought on record by Annexure 4, but it would be relevant to deal with only charge Nos. 3, 7 and 11 because it has been admitted by both the counsels appearing for the parties that the Enquiry Officer found only charge Nos. 3, 7 and 11 proved and did not find anything in relation to the other charges. In that context, therefore, it is necessary to briefly take note of charge Nos. 3, 7 and 11 and the findings of the Enquiry Officer in relation thereto.
4. Charge No.--3 reads as follows :--
"Disobedience of an Order passed by the District Soil Conservation Officer and submission of a false representation."
Findings of the inquiry in relation to this charge is summarized as follows :
"The District Soil Conservation Officer, Khunti had given an Order to Shri Kashi Nath Sahu on 26.11.1990 that he should hand over the charge of the records to Shri S. Tudu, but in spite thereof the petitioner did not do so and instead, on 13.12.1990, he submitted a false representation before the District Soil Conservation Officer, Ranchi through proper channel saying that pursuant to an order passed on 6.12.1990, he had already handed over the charge. The Soil Consideration Officer, Khunti has furnished a Report on 19.12.1990 which proves the aforementioned charge."
5. Mr. M.K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this charge also cannot be connected with the petitioner because from the findings of the Inquiry Officer, it is apparent that the District Soil Conservation Officer had passed an Order on 26.11.1990 whereas occurrence took place on 13.4.1991 and therefore, intervening period cannot be treated as disobedience or any act which can be called a misconduct.
6. This contention of Mr. M.K. Dey, however, cannot be accepted because this charge does not, in any way, relate to the occurrence of theft which took place on 13.4.1991. On the contrary it is an imputation charging the petitioner that he had disobeyed the Order passed on 26.11.1990 by which he had been directed to hand over the charge to Shri Sukhdeo Tudu, Accountant.
7. So far as the Charge No. 7 is concerned, it relates to "absence without leave from the office without handing over the charge of the concerned documents which was kept in the almirah and which ultimately was stolen.'
8. Mr. M.K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that this charge is a vague charge and it cannot be established that because of his absence, the almirah got stolen.
9. There appears to be some substance in what Mr. M.K. Dey has argued and from a perusal of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it is clear that the findings does not, in any way, establish beyond doubt, that because of his absence, the theft had occurred. However, what does appear to be correct is that the petitioner was negligent and that he had, to some extent, not obeyed the orders of his superior officers.
10. Similar is the case with charge No. 11 which also relates to "disobedience of the orders of the superior officers passed at the time when the petitioner was under suspension.' So far as this charge is concerned, the petitioner has himself admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he did not handover charge during suspension because he was awaiting the outcome of his representation, while he had filed.
11. From what has been stated above and taking into consideration the statements made at the Bar to the effect that only charges Nos. 3, 7 and 11 have been proved, this Court, therefore, has to see whether the charges framed against the petitioner have been proved to the hilt and whether the petitioner can be held responsible as per the findings of the Enquiry Officer. This Court has also to see whether the punishments that have been imposed are commensurate with the nature of the allegations charged upon the petitioner.
12. From what has been discussed above, it is apparent that basically and principally charge Nos. 3, 7 and 11 all relate to either disobedience in not handing over the charge and also absence from duty. From the narration of events and from the arguments, it is also evident that the petitioner, after having been put under suspension, had moved this Court earlier vide CWJC No. 2146 of 1991 (R) which was disposed off on 8.9.1993 with a direction upon the authorities to conclude the departmental proceedings and to pass an order within a period of three months from the date on which the copy of that order was produced before the respondent No. 2, Thereafter, on 7.1.1994 the respondent passed an order of punishment while revoking the order of suspension which gave rise to filing of CWJC No. 387 of 1994 (R). The order of punishment passed then which was also withholding of three annual increments and recovery of the sum of Rs. 11,315.50. It also stated that no amount shall be payable to the petitioner during the period of suspension. This Order of punishment was quashed on the ground of non supply of enquiry report before passing of the final order. This Court, while quashing the said punishment order, directed that the disciplinary authority will serve a copy of the Enquiry Report on the petitioner and then he will file his show cause or representation, if any, within two weeks from the date of service of the Enquiry Report and thereafter, the respondent No. 2 will pass the final order in accordance with law.
13. From a perusal of the order impugned in the writ application, it is apparent that the punishment orders that had been passed earlier have again been repeated. The same orders have been passed with the only additional that the punishments will be recorded in his service. Now, after the aforementioned order was passed by this Court in CWJC No. 387 of 1997(R), the Enquiry Report was submitted on 17.10.1995 and second show cause notice was given and finally the order impugned has been passed.
14. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that because of his negligence, the theft took place in the office and had the petitioner handed over charge to Shri S. Tudu within time, the theft may not have taken place at that time. He has also submitted that he willfully absented in duties with the only intention of not handing over the charge.
15. However, for negligence or for disobeying the orders of the superior, it cannot be held that because of such negligence or disobedience the theft had taken place. In other words, the factum or the occurrence of theft cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. All that can be said is that the petitioner was negligent or that by not handing over the charge to Shri S. Tudu, he had disobeyed the Orders of his superior officers.
16. In that view of the matter, the punishment of recovery of the sum of Rs. 11,315.50 paise from the salary of the petitioner in twenty (20) equal instalments @Rs. 565/- each and the punishments of withholding of three (3) annual increments appear to be disproportionate and very bars.
17. Accordingly, the writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Order dated 16.1.1996, as contained at Annexure 8 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondents for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the observations made above.
18. With the aforementioned observations and directions the instant writ application is disposed off. However, there shall be no order as to costs.