Nehal Gope vs The State of Jharkhand and others

Alok Singh

The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30th July, 2004 (Annexure 6), whereby the petitioner was held guilty and direction was issued to recover the amount of loss from the petitioner. On being asked, learned counsel for the State has fairly stated that neither show cause was ever issued before passing the impugned order nor the petitioner was heard nor any disciplinary enquiry was held against the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3581 of 1999 (R) has directed to release the payment along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-to the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 3581 of 1999 (R), thereafter it was found that the State has suffered loss of exchequer on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner and, hence, the impugned order was passed.

Be as the case may be, however, the fact remains that neither any show cause notice was issued against the petitioner, nor disciplinary enquiry was ever held to say that the petitioner is guilty for the financial loss caused to the State, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to pass fresh order after issuing show cause notice for holding disciplinary enquiry in accordance with law.