AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order issued by the Executive Engineer, REO Works Division, Motihari, Respondent No. 4, by which a sum of Rs. 624329.97 paise is sought to be recovered from his salary on account of loss sustained by the State.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that for the same self charge, the Petitioner is facing a criminal charge and the matter is still sub-justice and in the meantime, the Respondents without starting a departmental proceeding or eyen without a show-cause notice have directed to recover a sum of Rs. 624329.97 paise from the Petitioner. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the direction of the authorities for recovery of the aforesaid amount is without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of Natural Justice.
Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of Respondents 4 and 5.
JC to SC 10 with reference to counter affidavits, however, submitted that for recovery of the amount aforesaid, no departmental proceeding has been initiated nor any show cause notice was given to the Petitioner in view of the pendency of the criminal case.
It is almost admitted in the counter affidavits that for recovery of the amount; neither departmental proceeding has been initiated nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the Petitioner.
Mere pendency of a criminal case would not be sufficient to impose certain disciplinary punishments and in case, the authorities desire to proceed against the delinquent besides the criminal case, they are required to initiate a proceeding in terms of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and in case, it is found that it would be a case for imposing minor penalty, then, in that case, the authorities would be required to issue a show cause notice to the delinquent explaining the charges.
In the case at hand, neither a proceeding has been initiated nor any show-cause notice was given to the Petitioner before issuing the direction for recovery of the amount aforesaid.
For the reasons aforementioned, the direction issued by the authorities dated 10.6.1999 must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the direction dated 10.6.1999, which is part of Annexure 3, is set aside.
However, the authorities, if so desire, be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.