Patna High Court
Gopal Jha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 October, 2016
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13006 of 2013
===========================================================
Gopal Jha S/o Late Jaideo Jha, resident of village - Vijay Nagar, P.O. Vijay Nagar,
P.S.- Banka, District- Banka. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar State.
2. Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, Patna. B.M.P.-5, Campus,
Patna. through Respondent No. 2.
3. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar Police Building Construction
Corporation, B.M.P.- 5, Campus, Patna.
4. Chief Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, B.M.P.- 5,
Campus, Patna.
5. Superintending Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation,
B.M.P.- 5, Campus, Patna.
6. Executive Engineer, Bhagalpur Division of Bihar Police Construction
Corporation. .... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.S. Shabbar Hussain
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 20-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar Police Building Construction.
In this case, the petitioner is challenging the letter no. 1245 containing order dated 10th May 2013 thereby Rs. 29,700/-, which is the price of 50 C.I. pipes, has been recovered/deducted proportionately from the retiral dues of the petitioner.
The matter relates to missing of 50 pipes from the Store which is situated at Munger.
The petitioner at the relevant time, was posted as Store Incharge, having his Head Office at Bhagalpur. He has Patna High Court CWJC No.13006 of 2013 dt.20-10-2016 2/3 superannuated from service on 31st August 2010 and after his superannuation, he handed over the charge and in course of handing and taking over the charge, 50 CI Pipes were found missing, for that, he has already lodged the first information report, but in the first information report, nothing has been mentioned about the use of the pipes by the Police official sinking tube well in Dharara infested with the maoist activity.
An application dated 27.06.2011 was written by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, Bhagalpur Division there he mentioned that when he had gone for lodging the first information report, he was informed by the Police official that the said 50 pipes were used in naxalite affected area for sinking tube well.
The counsel for the Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation has drawn attention of this Court to the paragraph 16 where the petitioner has specifically mentioned that he could know about the missing of pipes as was informed by Saryug Prasad Yadav who was Chowkidar at the relevant time whereas in the application, a different story has been mentioned, having said and both are not coherent but one fact is emerging which has been mentioned in both the places that at the instance of the Superintendent of Police, the said 50 CI Pipes have been consumed. Patna High Court CWJC No.13006 of 2013 dt.20-10-2016 3/3 If that be so, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the missing of pipes and from his retiral dues no deduction can be made but if the story is wrong, the action of the Corporation cannot be held to be illegal.
Unless there will be a fact finding by the competent authority, the real fact will not come to the light, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that an enquiry should be conducted in this matter.
This Court directs, the I.G. of Police, Munger will hold an enquiry and find out as to whether 50 CI Pipes were used on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Munger or it otherwise. If the finding comes in favour of the petitioner, the respondent authority will be obliged to return the deducted amount along with the statutory interest, but if the finding comes otherwise, there is no question of return of the amount. While holding enquiry, the I.G. of Police, Munger will be obliged to give fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 22/10/2016 Transmission Date