IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.540 of 2002 JAG NARAYAN RAM SON OF LATE RAM BILAS RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIKHROUL, P.S. SHIKARHATTA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PERSONEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, MAIN SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECREETARY, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, LABOUR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE JOINT SECRETARY, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 6. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY CUM ENQUIRING OFFICER, LABOUR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. ----------- 4 09/09/2010 Order dated 13.11.2001 which is annexure-1 to the writ application is also an order of punishment which has come to visit the petitioner based on the so called enquiry held against him. The punishment is reduction in rank. It is not disputed that since then the petitioner has superannuated and re-earned his promotion after the order of demotion was passed by the respondents which is under challenge in this writ application. - 2 - Primary submission of the learned counsel is that the respondent authorities have erred in imposing punishment on the petitioner based on the findings of the enquiry officer alone because there was yet another enquiry conducted by three Member Committee and the opinion of the three member committee was not taken into consideration by the enquiry officer which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner as well as his defence. Three Member Committee does not pin the petitioner down in its report but has found fault with the system as such. Three Member Committee enquiry report is dated 15.06.1996 and is annexure-11 to the writ application. Stand of the State Counsel is that the order of punishment has been passed based on the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. A full fledged enquiry had to be held when large amount of money had been withdrawn during the tenure of the petitioner who was functioning as a Registrar and had certain responsibilities. No proper accounts were maintained and expenses had been shown in purchase of stationery and furnitures including their repair which gone into lacs - 3 - of rupees. In the enquiry evidence were provided, petitioner was given an opportunity but he could not answer the charges satisfactorily and, therefore, the punishment order came to be passed against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has two contentions to make thereafter. He submits that there is some evidence to show that the petitioner was not the drawing and disbursing officer and yet another person was the drawing and disbursing officer and he died leaving a legacy of incomplete records and entries because late Shri Nandan Prasad Sinha was a drawing and disbursing officer. It is also his contention that the finding of guilt must be taken into consideration on the totality of the material which was available. The authorities have intentionally ignored the three members Committee report which could have surely established the innocence of the petitioner and since it was a report of a Committee set up by the Government, it has some reflection with the allegation and the set of charges. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, no doubt a three - 4 - member Committee report contained in annexure-11 has given its opinion on the issue in the report dated 15.06.1996 but this report could have very well been utilized by the petitioner as part of his evidence or defence during the course of enquiry. There is nothing to show that the petitioner ever pressed this evidence or the three member committee enquiry report. Even otherwise, since a detailed departmental enquiry was conducted, the three member enquiry report was only a circumstance and the findings given by the enquiry officer cannot be upturned or diluted by reading three member committee enquiry report in isolation. The report of the enquiry officer does hold the petitioner guilty based on the evidence which were mostly documentary in nature and it was only the opinion or findings of the enquiry officer which has compelled the respondents to impose punishment upon the petitioner. If the petitioner had continued in service, may be, to give him yet another opportunity the Court could have remanded the matter to the authority to consider the quantum of punishment, may be taking into account the three member committee enquiry report but no purpose - 5 - would be served since the petitioner has now retired and it is not a case that the punishment order has been passed without any material having emerged against the petitioner or there being any major legal infirmities in the proceeding which was conducted against the petitioner. This writ application, therefore, is dismissed but without any cost. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)