Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga, the appellate authority, in Misc. Case No. 50 of 2006 (Annexure-20) by which the appellate authority upheld the order of punishment passed Patna High Court CWJC No.10559 of 2008 dt.26-04-2017 by the disciplinary authority, the Collector, Darbhanga.

3. The petitioner was posted as Revenue Karamchari in Bahadurpur Anchal falling in the district of Darbhanga. Vide order dated 02.07.1999 (Annexure-1), the petitioner was asked to show cause about the issuance of fake rent receipts and fake mutation order in favour of Bharat Bhagat. The petitioner submitted his reply denying issuance of fake rent receipts and fake mutation order (Annexure-2). Many complaints were received with regard to issuance of fake rent receipts and fake order of mutation. An explanation was sought for from the petitioner. The Collector, Darbhanga after perusing the explanation of the petitioner suspended him on 18.12.1999 vide order contained under Memo No. 97110/Laheriasarai (Annexure-8). After suspension vide Letter as contained in Memo No. 159 dated 05.02.2000 izi= ^^d^^ (Form 'K') was framed (Annexure-9). The petitioner was charged on three counts:

(ii) Secondly, the petitioner after being relieved from Circle Office, Bahadurpur on 07.06.1999 he issued unauthorisedly rent receipts without the order of mutation by the competent authority in favour of Vina Mishra, Wife of Brajnath Mishra with regard to the land of Thana No.- 490, Khata No. -250, Khesra No. 931, area 10 dhurs and also without appropriate mutation order name of Vina Mishra was mutated and entered into the Jamabandi register.

9. Learned counsel for the State further submits that this Court should not reappraise or re-appreciate the evidence called during the enquiry nor substitute its own finding in place of the finding of the disciplinary authority, unless it is shown that the order suffers from perversity, but there is no material to show that the order is perverse and the punishment is disproportionate to the charge.

10. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner was put under suspension on 18.12.1999 on the allegation of issuing fake rent receipts without proper order and for issuance of fake mutation order and creating Jamabandi without proper order of the authority. The Patna High Court CWJC No.10559 of 2008 dt.26-04-2017 petitioner after receiving the charge submitted letter to the enquiry officer on 15.02.2000 for supply of documents. The petitioner submitted his show cause on 01.04.2000 (Annexure-11). The petitioner specifically stated in his show cause that the documents demanded by him were made available to him on 23.03.2000 and, only thereafter, he submitted his show cause. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no relevant document was supplied to the petitioner during the course of departmental enquiry is not at all acceptable.

12. The petitioner was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement with forfeiture of 1/3rd pension and 1/3rd gratuity in view of Section 27 and 46(A) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that forfeiture of pension and gratuity besides compulsory retirement of the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge. The petitioner, of course, issued different rent receipts without the order of mutation in favour of different persons in different mutation cases pending before the Circle Officer, but it has nowhere come that any pecuniary loss was caused to the State exchequer or the petitioner issued any fake rent receipts. Even if the charge is admitted that the petitioner issued rent receipts without appropriate mutation order but later names of land owners were mutated and Jamabandi was opened in favour of such persons. No loss was caused to the Government exchequer. Therefore, the punishment of withholding the gratuity and pension is not sustainable.