IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11877 of 2000 JAI NARAYAN JAISWAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.8480 of 2002 JAI NARAIN JAISWAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 1.7.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna(hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). 2. C.W.J.C. No. 11877 of 2000 is directed against the impugned removal order dated 28.7.2000 contained in Annexure-9 to this application whereunder the Administrator of the Corporation has directed removal of the petitioner from the service of the Corporation by way of punishment as charges levelled against the petitioner under Memo No. 9331 dated 27.11.1995, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit was found true. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that the same has been passed without appreciating the facts in the correct perspective. It is submitted that Collector, Bhabhua reported about the irregularities being committed at the Karamanasha Check Post which was under the charge of the two enforcement officers and petitioner was posted there as a cashier. On the basis of the report charge was framed against the petitioner Vide Memo of charge dated 27.11.1995, Annexure-A. In response to the charges petitioner submitted his written defence that he is not - 2 - involved in any of the irregularities reported by the Collector, Bhabhua as he has been sincerely collecting the road tax at the Karamanasha Check Post and after accounting for the collections always deposited the amount in the Bank. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on account of strike by the Government employees there was shortage of receipts at the Check Post about which information was furnished by the enforcement officer under letter dated 7.1.1994 and thereafter on the basis of verbal authorization of the Collector, Bhabhua photo copy of the receipts were procured on the basis of which collections were made and duly counted for and deposited in the Bank. 4. The Inquiry Officer considered the aforesaid defence of the petitioner and in his report dated 11.11.1998, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit found that petitioner was not responsible for any of the irregularities committed at the Check Post. The Disciplinary Authority differed with the inquiry report and issued second show cause notice which is dated 3.6.2000 and is contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. Perusal whereof indicates that the same proceeds on the basis that the petitioner was hand in glove with the two enforcement officers posted at the Check Post and such conclusion the Disciplinary Authority reached on the basis of the report of the Collector, Bhabhua dated 2.7.1995, Annexure-10. 5. The petitioner having received the second show cause notice submitted his reply dated 10.6.2000, Annexure-8 asserting that he was not hand in gloves with the two enforcement officers and - 3 - conclusion to the contrary arrived at on the basis of the report of the Collector dated 2.7.1995, Annexure-10 is misconceived as in the report of the Collector dated 2.7.1995 petitioner is not even named as being in conspiracy with the enforcement officers. The Disciplinary Authority, however, did not accept the assertion and passed the impugned punishment order dated 28.7.2000 directing removal of the petitioner. 6. I have perused the inquiry report dated 11.11.1998 Annexure-B, second show cause notice dated 3.6.2000 Annexure-C and the report of the Collector dated 2.7.1995 Annexure-10 and having perused the aforesaid three documents it appears that he has not even been named in the report dated 2.7.1995 and that being so in my opinion, learned Administrator was not correct in observing that the petitioner was hand in glove with the two enforcement officers. 7. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the two enforcement officers have not even been proceeded against and such statement has been made in Paragraph-24 of the writ application. The enforcement officers are the employees of the State Government but till date the Government has not proceeded against the two enforcement officers, then in my opinion the petitioner who is said to be only hand in glove with the two enforcement officers should also not have been proceeded against and even if was proceeded against ought not to have been removed from service. 8. In view of the discussions above, I set aside the impugned removal order dated 28.7.2000, Annexure-9 and as the petitioner has - 4 - already superannuated during the pendency of this application with effect from 31.7.2002, the authorities of the Corporation are directed to pay his retiral dues including the arrears of salary for the period of suspension and earlier thereto as per his seriatim as a retired employee of the Corporation. 9. Both the writ applications are, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)