IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8649 of 2008 SHASHI BHUSHAN KR.SINHA @ SHASHI KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 30.07.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.5.2008 bearing memo no. 222 issued by the respondent no. 2. It holds the petitioner guilty of alleged defalcation of a sum of Rs.14,000/- and directs him to deposit the same along with interest @ 18% from the year 2003. The petitioner was a Nazir at the Jehanabad Block. The allegations are that a payment voucher for Rs.22/- was interpolated to read as Rs.14,000/- leading to withdrawal far in excess by voucher no. 1327 leading to defalcation. The submission is that voucher no. 1327 was prepared for payment to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies ,Aurangabad, pursuant to which a cheque for a value of Rs.14,000/- was drawn on Account no. 1698 of the Magadh Gramin Bank under the orders of respondent no. 3 who cleared the voucher under his own signature. That the petitioner in his reply to the show cause raised this issue specifically that the voucher had been signed by the respondent no. 3 and not by the petitioner and that the payment had been made by cheque. Learned Counsel for the State sought to support the impugned order by referring to the counter affidavit filed today by respondent no. 3, an interested party himself. The counter affidavit seeks to suggest that it was the petitioner who made the interpolation in the bill while original voucher was for Rs. 22/-. In view of the recitals in the impugned order, if the pleadings in the counter affidavit to explain the same be permissible, it is noticed that the affidavit is silent on the issue of payments having been made to the Assistant Registrar by cheque and contains evasive statement at Para 10. On a bare perusal, the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures in an attempt to any how hold the petitioner guilty. No reasons have been assigned as to why his explanation that the voucher had been signed by respondent no. 3 and the payment had been made by cheque of Rs.14000/- was not accepted. The impugned order proceeds on the premise that even if the signature of respondent no. 3 be genuine it was still a matter of embezzlement. There is no finding or brief discussion of satisfaction on interpolation in the voucher to correct Rs.22/- to read as Rs. 14000/-. The order then proceeds on the premise that if the interpolation was made by the respondent no. 3 or any other person the petitioner should have pointed it out and his failure to point it out leads to presumption of interpolation by himself fixing responsibility of defalcation on him. This Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned order of punishment requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount in question as the same suffers from legal infirmity. There is no decision in consonance with law. In absence of any finding of guilt the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. The impugned order dated 12.5.2008 bearing memo no. 222 is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)