IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.1177 OF 2005 RAM DINESH SINGH, SON OF SHRI BALESHWAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SABAJPURA, POST OFFICE JAIPUR, DISTRICT JEHANABAD VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA, BUDH MARG, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION, BHOJPUR 5. THE TREASURY OFFICER, BHOJPUR, ARRAH 6. THE HEADMASTER, HARBANSH HIGH SCHOOL, CHANDI, POST OFFICE CHANDI, DISTRICT BHOJPUR ******* 3 04/01/2011 I.A. No. 1897 of 2006 has been filed to substitute the heirs of the sole petitioner who died on 11.03.2006. The petitioner is survived by his wife Ramjari Devi and only son, namely, Pramod Kumar. I.A. No. 1897 of 2006 is allowed and the office is directed to expunge the name of the sole petitioner substitute his legal heirs described in paragraph 1 of the interlocutory application. The petitioner has challenged the order as contained in Annexure-1 by which after an enquiry, it has been held that the petitioner was irregular in attending the School where he was posted as Headmaster between 1996 to 1999, the authorities have also come to the conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for not depositing Rs. 46,953/- in the Treasury. The facts giving rise to this case are that the 2 petitioner was transferred to Harbansh High School, Chandi on 25.09.1993. He joined the said school on 05.10.1993 and was appointed as Drawing & Disbursing Officer on 30.01.1995. On 27.02.1996, the powers of the petitioner as Drawing & Disbursing Officer was seized by the District Education Officer vide Annexure-11 of the writ application. During the tenure of the petitioner as a Headmaster, certain allegations were leveled against him. These allegations are basically that the petitioner remained absent of and on and continuously between 01.03.1996 to 31.03.1999. It has also been alleged that the petitioner did not submit the accounts between December, 1993 to February, 1996. In reply to the allegations, the petitioner has submitted that the allegations against him are completely false and that he was not responsible for depositing the amount which had allegedly been misappropriated by him. The finding of the enquiry indicates that the petitioner has not been able to produce any material in support of the fact that he was in regular attendance in the School in question. It has also come in the enquiry report that the petitioner has locked up and kept all the attendance registers with him and further that he was in the habit of changing the attendance registers from time to time and did not 3 maintain the accounts in a proper manner. It has also come on record that on several occasions on inspection in the year 1996 and in the year 1999, the petitioner was found absent from duty. Counsel for the petitioner assails the finding on the ground that the records of the School are with the concerned authorities and, therefore, they had all opportunity to examine the records by looking into the attendance registers. Obviously, it seems from the enquiry report and pleadings in the writ application that in fact, there is no attendance registers in the School and the petitioner could not produce even a single witness to support the fact that he was regularly attending the School or that he was performing his duties in the School. The petitioner did not take trouble to even call for the record in the enquiry to substantiate his claim, therefore, the submission on behalf of the petitioner that it was the duty of the authorities to produce documents does not seem to be justified. The next allegation against the petitioner is that he had not deposited a sum of Rs. 46,953/- in the Treasury. I find that this part of the allegation is a bit vague, in view of the fact that the allegation does not specify the period during which this amount was not deposited. It has also not clear as to how the Enquiry 4 Officer come to the conclusion that Rs. 46,953/- was not deposited in the Treasury, specifically the authorities ought to have clarified whether this amount was due before or after 27.02.1996, which is the cut off date on which the petitioner was divested with the power of Drawing & Disbursing Officer. I, therefore, remand the matter back in part to the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna to look into this aspect of the allegation and come to a clear cut finding regarding the question of deposit of Rs. 46,953/-. In the mean time, the salary and the retiral benefit which are undisputed, should be paid to the widow of the petitioner. This writ application is allowed partly to the extent indicated aforesaid. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )