CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9473 of 1996 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ----- MUNDRIKA SINGH, son of late Dunmun Singh, resident of village Kab, P S – Rani Talab (Bikram), District – Patna, at present posted as Jr. Engineer, in the office of the Engineer-in-Chief –cum- Special Secretary, Public Works Department, Bihar, Patna. ______________ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Engineer-in-Chief –cum- Special Secretary, Public Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization Works Division, Saran at Chapra. ______________ Respondents ____ For the petitioner: Mr. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH For the respondents : P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. This is the third visit of the petitioner to this Court. The other two writ applications were also filed for similar kind of prayer or relief. In one case writ was dismissed for non-prosecution. In the other case petitioner was relegated to the respondent Engineer-in-Chief with liberty to file his show cause before him and offer his explanation with regard to shortage of certain stone metals quantified at Rs.74000/-, which was supposed to be in custody of the petitioner at one point of time and was to be utilized for repair of what is known as Mokamah- Sarmera-Barbigha road. 2. Short facts are that the petitioner was a Junior Engineer 2 posted at Mokamah Sub Division. He came to be transferred on 7.5.1971 and handed over charge to his successor namely Nand Lal Jaiswal on 14.5.1971. The handing over and taking over charge has been done as would be evident from Annexure-15, annexed with the writ application. 3. The present problem arises from an objection raised by the Audit which was conducted in the year 1974-75. The objection of the audit was that the stone metals were short to the extent of Rs.74,000/- and responsibility ought to be fixed if no proper explanation is coming from the concerned authority. 4. Since the petitioner was the immediate outgoing Junior Engineer and one Nand Lal Jaiswal is his successor, both were issued notice to show cause as to why recovery ought not to be effected for the loss caused to the State. Show cause was filed by the petitioner but the respondents were not satisfied with the explanation, as well as the reliance placed on certain rules of the PWD Code. The Engineer-in- Chief decided to fix responsibility upon the petitioner as well as Nand Lal Jaiswal. Recovery was ordered to be made to the extent of Rs.300/- per month from the salary of both till the amount stood satisfied. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there ought to have been a proper enquiry and a departmental proceeding where petitioner would have been given full opportunity to lead evidence and defend himself. Mere issuance of show cause and rejection of the same has caused prejudice to him because the order of recovery has civil consequences upon him and such a decision ought 3 not to have been taken without proper disciplinary proceeding having been drawn up against him. He further submits that if there was a failure on the part of the other authorities to hold physical verification of the stocks in terms of Rule 294 of the Bihar Financial Rules, 1950, liability cannot be fixed on the petitioner because the fall out has been due to negligence of other persons who had also failed to perform their duties. 6. The stand of the State is that the decision to recover had been taken after the audit team physically verified the stone metals, which were dumped at the site and which were found short by the audit team. No doubt the petitioner stood transferred in the year 1971 and the audit objection came in the year 1974-75 but then he was the outgoing officer and he had a responsibility to account for of all physical goods which were under his charge when he handed over charge. His responsibility does not end merely because some body had taken charge, specially when from the charge giving and taking report it is evident that his successor had made certain entries on which it is mentioned that there was no physical verification of the stone metals when charge was handed over by the petitioner. Even otherwise it is not a case where a disciplinary proceeding was required to be held because it is a matter of accounting of the materials which were in custody of the petitioner when he was posted at the relevant time and accounting had to be done not only by the petitioner but his successor. Since the authorities held both the persons responsible , therefore, the recovery to the extent of fifty fifty on both heads were ordered by the 4 respondents when the petitioner failed to certify or satisfy the authorities that he had duly accounted for these stone metals when he handed over charge to his successor. 7. This Court is of the opinion that it is not a case where a regular departmental proceeding is required to be held because it comes within the field of accounting. What the petitioner took charge of when he was posted and what he handed over on transfer, must be duly accounted for. If there are shortages, there must be an explanation offered which is convincing and cogent. Hiding behind the rules will not help the petitioner in any manner. The fact stands that there is omission on the part of the petitioner while handing over charge and since Nand lal Jaiswal also did not insist on actual physical verification at the time of taking over charge, the respondent authorities were compelled to take action in the above circumstances. 8. If it was a case where the recovery had been effected without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, there could have been an occasion for this Court to interfere. Petitioner had been given an opportunity and he tried his best to explain which he could not. These are matters which can be best appreciated by the concerned authorities taking into consideration the actual state of affairs on the ground and it cannot be adjudicated on the basis of pleadings in an Article 226 application. 9. It is not a case where benefit of doubt could be given to the petitioner in the above stated circumstance. Public money or public property can not be allowed to be neglected which has its impact on 5 developmental programmes of the State. If indulgence is given to the government officials in such a casual manner then it goes without saying that ultimately it is the people who will have to pay a price, though the concerned officer may walk away home smiling on one technicality or the other. 10. The Court is not convinced with the explanation or the grounds urged by the petitioner to absolve him of the responsibility. The order does not require interference in any manner. 11. The writ application is dismissed. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court: The 4th November, 2010. R K Pathak (NAFR).