IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12302 of 1996 SURENDRA JHA SON OF TARA KANT JHA RESIDERNT OF VILLAGE MAHINATHPUR, P.S. BASOPATTI DISTRICT MADHUBANI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 4. THE SPECIAL OFFICER CUM DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURECES DEPARTMENT (REVENUE ADMINISTRATION), BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (REVENUE DIVISION), MADHUBANI. ----------- 5 27/07/2010 Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Irrigation Department on a temporary basis on 4.6.1969. Subsequently his services came to be regularized and he came on the permanent roll of the establishment. After regularization, petitioner was posted at Jai Nagar as an Assistant (Muharrir). On 17.11.1982 one Tulsi Rai who happened to be the Revenue Inspector died and the petitioner was asked to take charge of Kaluahi Tahsil as Incharge Revenue Inspector. It is his conduct during that posting which has finally ended in dismissal from service. Admitted position is that the petitioner took charge of the post on 18.11.1982 and worked on that post for some time. An inspection was carried out of the said Tahsil and - 2 - certain irregularities were found, mostly relating to collection of revenue and its non-deposit. Initially a sum of Rs.2388/- was found not to have been deposited but when the facts emerged in the inspection report, petitioner deposited the said amount on 5.1.1984 in the government treasury. This deposit was made in 1984 when the collection related to the financial year 1982-83. Petitioner came to be suspended on 6.1.1984 on the charge of defalcation of State revenue. A set of charges came to be drawn up against him which not only included the charge of defalcation but even disobedience because the petitioner failed to hand over charge of the office despite direction of the superiors. An enquiry was held, finding of defalcation and disobedience of Superior’s order by not handing over charge of the post in question for more than a year and a half has emerged on the records. In fact, the District Magistrate had to deploy even an Executive Magistrate to forcefully take charge of the office of the petitioner and an inventory thereof came to be drawn up. Based on the finding, petitioner was issued a second show cause. He responded to the second show cause and - 3 - raised certain objections with regard to the defalcation of money and the quantification thereof. This was based on the clue taken from the Enquiry Officer that he was not in a position to quantify the said amount in absence of sufficient material in this regard. The explanation offered by the petitioner to his second show cause compelled the authorities to give the petitioner yet another opportunity to explain his conduct so far as the charge of defalcation is concerned. The accounting and verification of records was done at the stage of second show cause in which the petitioner participated. The finding thereafter is that the figure of rupees nine thousand and odd had jumped up to the figure of Rs.28,591.94 P. Learned counsel for the petitioner now challenges the order of punishment passed in Annexure-10 on the ground that he was not given a copy of the enquiry report when the figure based on which Rs.28,591.94 P was worked out. This has caused him serious prejudice and the order of punishment must go on that score alone. The fact and the proposition of law submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not as simple as he tries - 4 - to make out. A finding of guilt of the petitioner was very much there on both the counts. From the materials which were produced before the Enquiry Officer, charges of defalcation was established though the final figure was not indicated by him due to circumstance that for more than 16 months the petitioner never handed over the charge despite him being under suspension. He continued to make collection of the taxes or revenue and never kept proper accounts thereof. This conduct of the petitioner is yet another issue. From a perusal of annexure-10 as well as the original record of the departmental enquiry produced by the learned counsel for the State, it is evident that the petitioner has not been taken by surprise with regard to the final quantification or the accounting. The accounting was done in his presence on due participation and that enquiry was not an independent enquiry but part and parcel of the ongoing proceeding which was at the stage of second show cause. Merely because the respondent authorities, gave him an indulgence to establish his innocence in which he participated - 5 - through and through, it does not become a breach of procedure for which the benefit must accrue to the petitioner. In fact, credit goes to the respondents that they wanted to give an opportunity to the petitioner even at the stage of second show cause to come out clean whether it was a case of defalcation or not but unfortunately for the petitioner it was with his due participation and verification of records the figure jumped up to Rs.28,591.94 P. With the charges of insubordination as well defalcation having been proved, the order of punishment had to follow and the order of dismissal in this regard cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. Petitioner was a government servant saddled with the responsibility of collection of government revenue and if that was taken as a personal liberty for him to pocket the government revenue or money, then the government has to view the matter seriously. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a relatively recent decision had occasion to uphold dismissal of a Bus Conductor who had illegally pocketed a sum of Rs.100/- and odd and a punishment of dismissal was held to be not disproportionate. If the case of the present petitioner is - 6 - decided in the background of that fact, then this Court does not find that the petitioner deserves any lenient view in this regard. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)