IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.164 of 2011 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform, Patna. 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ……………………Appellants/ Respondents. Versus YOGENDRA NARAYAN JHA S/o Late Babua Jee Jha Resodent of Village- Dibra, P.S. Nauhatta, District- Saharsa, retired as Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Government of Bihar, Patna. ……………………Respondent/ Petitioner. ----------- 4 08.03.2011 Heard the parties on the point of limitation. Other side has no objection. Accordingly, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. The present L.P.A. arises out of an order dated 7.5.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.15147 of 2005. In the said writ petition the writ petitioner, respondent herein, has questioned the proceedings issued by the disciplinary authority as also reducing 50% pension vide Memo No. 529 dated 19.8.1997 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The impugned proceeding relates to a period while the writ petitioner was posted as Under Secretary in Public Health and Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. By the said memo an enquiry was directed to be conducted with regard to illegal, fraudulent and excess withdrawal of Government money for the financial year 1990-91 to 1995-96. Case of the respondents, appellants herein, is that two charges were framed against the writ petitioner, firstly, while the writ petitioner, respondent herein, was posted as Under Secretary, P.H.E.D, Government of Bihar in the year 1991 he had withdrawn 2 an amount of Rs.13.39 lac towards expenditure on paper and stationary required for the Minister, State Minister Establishment without obtaining any sanction/approval and without following the prescribed procedures, for securing personal gains, which amounts to financial irregularity and secondly before entailing the expenditure, the writ petitioner should have ensured the availability of finance, but he did not do so which reflected wrong intentions. It is further contended that the writ petitioner did not take any steps for getting the voucher passed which would demonstrate that he had designed the entire act for personal gain. The writ petitioner, respondent herein had filed reply to the said charge on 25.1.2001 and thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed who had conducted the enquiry. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has held that most of the charges were not proved but some of the charges were proved. It is held by the Enquiry Officer that the allegation of personal gain is not proved and there was no evidence on record to show that the vouchers had to be passed only upon availability of fund. However, the Enquiry Officer has held that the other charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide Memo No.1657 dated 20.8.2005 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) has imposed punishment of forfeiture of 50% pension of the writ petitioner, respondent herein, upon consideration of the enquiry report and the reply filed by the writ petitioner, respondent herein. Such order 3 has been questioned by the writ petitioner, respondent herein, in the writ application. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration all the materials on record in detail has come to a conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in a routine manner without proper application of mind and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence. Having held so the learned Single Judge has quashed the order passed vide Memo no. 1657 dated 20.8.2005 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, against which the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Enquiry Officer has held that although charge of personal gain was not proved but the other charges were proved and therefore the learned Single Judge has committed error in holding that as the charge of personal gain has not been proved, other charges cannot be sustained. He has further contended that in view of the requisition made by the Finance Secretary, the writ petitioner, respondent herein, was bound to act on the same and he has to supply the papers and stationary to the establishment of the concerned Minister after following the prescribed procedure. We also had the occasion to go through the charges framed and the Enquiry Officer’s report. It is a case where allegation of personal gain is not proved, but however the Enquiry Officer has held that other charges are proved, but there is no other 4 charge and in absence of the evidence of the department, we cannot find any illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge which would warrant interfering with the same. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, respondent herein, has contended that the presenting officer fails to produce any evidence and in absence of any evidence of the department we concur with the view of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this L.P.A. is dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)