Prahlad Chandra Sharma vs The State of Bihar and Others

Shivaji Pandey, J.—Heard learned counsel for he petitioner and the State.

In this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 2nd July 1997 as well as order dated 27th August 1997, contained in Annexure-1 and Annexcure-1/1 respectively passed by the respondent Deputy Inspector General (Training) cum-Principal, Police Training College, (for short, ''P.T.C''), Hazaribagh in Departmental Proceeding No. 3 of 1994 by which he ordered that the petitioner was guilty of the charges leveled against him and the total sanctioned amount of Rs.2,17,713/- would be deducted proportionately from each of the three delinquent employees and has also challenged the order dated 22nd July 1997 issued under the signature of the Principle, Constable Training School, Nathnagar (for short, ''C.T.S),Nathnagar, by which he affirmed the order date dated 2nd July 1997, thereby ordered that Rs.90,238/-be recovered from the petitioner at the same time, this petitioner was directed to deposit the same by 22nd August 1997.

The petitioner in his petition has stated that he has already superannuated from service on 31st December 1996 from the post of Accountant, C.T.C, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur.

While the petitioner was functioning as Accountant at C.T.C., Nathnagar, all on a sudden petitioner was put under suspension vide Memo No. 4751 dated 30th October 1993, issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Headquarter, followed by charges vide Memo No.490 dated 14th November 1993 issued by the Deputy Inspector General cum Principal, P.T.C., Hazaribagh. There was a charge of financial irregularities in excess payment of Rs.49,246/- under the heading of repairing of vehicles.

Petitioner submitted his show cause against the charges and thereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and after the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report that the petitioner is guilty of charge and on the basis of said enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order whereby directed for recovery of Rs.2,17,713/- from three delinquent employees in equal proportion from three persons, meaning thereby the petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs.90,238/-.

Petitioner challenged the said order vide C.W.J.C.No. 6737 of 1996 on the ground of violation of natural justice as the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner at any point of time. This Court vide order dated 19th September 1996 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to serve the copy of the enquiry report and proceed afresh from that stage.

Petitioner was reinstated in service and a copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioner by the Principle of C.T.S., Bhagalpur through letter dated 9th November 1996. Petitioner filed his reply vide dated 25th November 1996 against the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 2nd July 1997 passed the order of punishment against the petitioner for deduction of proportionate amount for all the bills sanctioned in the financial year 1991-92 which was calculated at Rs.2,70,713/- and directed to deduct the said mount from each of the three delinquent employees in equal proportion. Thereafter corrigendum was issued vide letter dated 27th August 1999 and thereby an amount of Rs.2,70,713/- be read as Rs.2,17,713/- as mentioned in the order of punishment.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, petitioner filed an appeal before the Director General cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar enumerating all the grounds but the appeal was not disposed of till filing of the writ petition. The State has filed a counter affidavit and stated that the appeal was under active consideration but he is not in a position to state whether the said appeal has was decided by the Appellant Authority.

While admitting this petition on 25th June 1999, this court directed to deposit an amount of Rs.16,415/- being 1/3rd of Rs.49,248/-, minus the amount already recovered from the petitioner and the recovery of the rest amount pursuant to the impugned order remained stayed.

According to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, without applying his mind and without looking into the facts of the case, passed the order, as the bills were never placed before the petitioner prior to its approval and were passed. It has further been submitted that it was not the duty of the petitioner and for the first time in the year 1995 the said duty was entrusted to the Accountant and Head Clerk of the Office. All the bills were directly passed by the Principal himself and without any material, much less valid material, the petitioner was wrongly held to be guilty of the said loss. It is further submitted that there was an estimate of Rs.2,17,713/- but, in fact, there was excess amount paid was Rs.49,246/- and, as such, the loss to the State cannot be more than the aforesaid amount. It is submitted that the direction to recover 1/3rd amount of Rs.2,17,713/- is completely arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law.

It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the departmental proceeding was concluded following due process of laws. The petitioner was given all possible opportunity to defend his case. The petitioner was served the enquiry report as per direction of this Court. Disciplinary Authority passed the order on consideration of reply filed by the petitioner. The order of punishment was passed for his negligence in the light of Police Manual and Rues of Treasury Code.

Considering the arguments of both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the departmental enquiry was conducted following the principle of natural justice and, as such, the departmental enquiry cannot be held to be bad. In stead of deciding on merit as to whether the petitioner was guilty of the charge of negligence or not, since there is a finding of fact appearing from the enquiry that there was actual loss of Rs.49,246/- to the State, but there is direction to recover 1/3rd of Rs.2,17,713/-, I find that the direction to recover 1/3rd of Rs.2,17,713/- is arbitrary. The order of the Disciplinary Authority to recover the 1/3rd of Rs.2,17,713/- (Estimated cost) be confined to the amount of actual loss.

In this view of the matter, for the ends of justice and looking to the facts that the petitioner has already retired from service, the order of the Disciplinary Authority is confined to recover the amount of 1/3rd of the actual loss amount, i.e. Rs.49,246/ which has already been recovered or deposited by the petitioner. It is ordered that in stead of recovering Rs.90,238/ from the petitioner, only 1/3rd of Rs.49,246/- which comes to Rs.16,415/- is recoverable.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.