IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1383 of 2005 RAJENDRA PD.SHARMA, son of late Anant Thakur, resident of Mohalla – Kashipur, P S – Samastipur, District – Samastipur. ____ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Addl. Finance Commissioner (Resources), Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Samastipur. 5. The Treasury Officer, Samastipur, District Treasury, Samastipur. 6. The Sub-Treasury Officer, Sub-Treasury, Rosera, District- Samastipur. 7. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Court Campus, Samastipur. ____ Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Pushkar Narayan Shahi and Satish Chandra Mitra. For the State: Mr. Vikas Kumar, AC to Advocate General. For the Bank: Mrs. NiluAgrawal. ------- 3. 18.8.2010 Petitioner was an employee of State Corporation known as BHALCO. Since this Corporation along with many other State Corporations went sick, by way of policy decision, the State authorities decided to utilize the services of some of those employees in other departments of the State. Quite a few of them came to be posted in the various treasuries across the State and petitioner was one of them. Petitioner was posted at Samastipur Treasury and was still on deputation and had not been absorbed fully or finally under the Finance Department of Government of Bihar. 2. For certain acts of his omission and negligence while being posted in the Samastipur Treasury petitioner came to be proceeded against departmentally. A charge-sheet was drawn up, enquiry was held and an enquiry report was tendered holding the 2 petitioner guilty of the primary charge of his being negligent with regard to the safe keeping of the advice book which led to its misuse and illegal withdrawal from the State Bank. 3. Vide order dated 20.8.2002 the petitioner along with yet another employee came to be repatriated back to their parent department. Such an order is Annexure-23 to the writ application. This order of repatriation was challenged but the petitioner failed to succeed in getting the order of repatriation set aside in any manner. The order of the learned single Judge is Annexure-24 to the writ application. Petitioner even filed a review of the said order which would be evident from Annexure-25. He went in appeal in LPA No.1109 of 2003. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge was upheld. In other words, the order of repatriation was not interfered with and the fate of the petitioner stood sealed by rejection of his appeal by the Division Bench. I believe the matter was allowed to rest at that because there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner took the matter to the Supreme Court. 4. The present writ is a second bout of litigation. He wants quashing of the departmental proceeding and the findings given in the enquiry report by the enquiry officer in the hope that if this finding is set to naught the petitioner still had a chance of probably going back to his original job working in the treasury instead of being pushed back to a defunct State Enterprises BHALCO, where there is neither work nor surety of payment of salary. 5. The Court fails to understand the logic of the petitioner 3 as to how any interference in the departmental proceeding or the findings given by the enquiry officer is going to help him to get back his job in the treasury. His repatriation order has been affirmed at various stages and there is no way the petitioner can be allowed to go back to Samastipur Treasury or any treasury in the State of Bihar. 6. The other aspect is the enquiry and the findings which have been given by the enquiry officer. The charge-sheet is Annexure- 17 to the writ application. Petitioner’s explanation is Annexure-18 and the finding given by the enquiry officer is Annexure-21. 7. It is a very detailed enquiry report which had taken note of the entire chain of events as well as the role played by the petitioner in the missing advice which was misutilized by certain persons for illegal withdrawal. No doubt there is some finding, as well as explanation of the petitioner that when he learnt about the missing advice, he informed the concerned bank about the same to ensure that no bills were prepared on the basis of the said advice and illegal withdrawal made therefrom but despite such an information, the facts stand that there was withdrawal on the basis of the missing advice and the State suffered loss of monetary kind. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to dig holes in the findings and the kind of evidence which came against him on the charges. But this Court has serious reservation on the arguments on the ground that the enquiry report has to be read as a whole and the evidence and the essence of the enquiry is to be culled out from the reading of the entire report and not bits and pieces. There is sufficiency 4 of evidence after due opportunity was given to the petitioner. The minimum which can be said against the petitioner is that it was from the custody of the petitioner that the advice had gone missing and it was the same advice which was used for illegal withdrawal. It may not be a case of deliberate or intentional act on the part of the petitioner but so far as the finding of negligence is concerned, that part cannot be wished away after reading the enquiry report and the evidence which had come during the course of enquiry. 9. In absence of any major legal infirmity having been pointed out it is not the duty of the Court to record a different set of opinion or finding, which has been rendered by the enquiry officer because it is not the duty of the High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to substitute its wisdom with regard to the findings or sit in appeal over the said set of findings. The Court is required to look into the enquiry from the point of view whether the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity to defend himself effectively or not and to ensure that there are no major legal infirmities in the proceeding conducted against the petitioner. 10. In absence of any of these aspects being pointed out there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the proceeding in question. 11. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)