IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.93 of 2009 MD.FAIYAZ AHMAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhakar Singh Mr. Ranjan Kumar Patel, Advocates 5 20-3-2009 Petitioner – appellant herein at the relevant time was working as Cashier - cum - Store Keeper in the Western Koshi Canal Division, Andhratharhi. He was dismissed from service on the allegation that he indulged in interpolation of three cheques issued by the Executive Engineer of the said division and , thereby, defrauded the State exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,85,000/- and further caused loss to the State exchequer to the tune of Rs.2,67,900/- on account of removal of the National Saving Certificates and passbook kept in his custody. It is further alleged that he withdrew the amount of Rs.34,534 & 19,214.50 paise on the basis of forged bills submitted by him. On the basis of the aforesaid charges a departmental enquiry was conducted and the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and - 2 - ultimately he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, he preferred a departmental appeal which also resulted in dismissal. The petitioner approached this court on earlier two occasions and the matter was sent back for removing the technical defects as raised by the petitioner and those defects were removed after providing opportunity to the petitioner but again he was found guilty. Contention of the petitioner was that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were false as whatever amount he had withdrawn on the basis of the three cheques were withdrawn at the instance of the Executive Engineer, as the Executive Engineer had not only signed the cheques but had also counter-signed the interpolation. It is further submitted that during the departmental enquiry he was not paid the subsistence allowance. The departmental enquiry was concluded on 12.6.1999 and the subsistence amounts were paid on 14.6.1999 and as a result of which the departmental enquiry deserves to be vitiated. This Court is not supposed to sit as an - 3 - appellate forum over the findings of the enquiry officer but from the order impugned it appears that the learned single judge has considered each and every aspect of the findings of the enquiry officer and found that the findings of the enquiry officer was based on evidence adduced during the enquiry. The contention of the petitioner that the three cheques were withdrawn at the instance of the Executive Engineer and the Executive Enginner had not only signed the cheques but had also counter-singed the interpolation cannot find favour to exonerate him from charges in appeal because there is also allegation that he himself forged the signature of the Executive Engineer. Moreover, all the allegations were proved. Merely delay in payment of subsistence allowance cannot be a ground for setting aside the enquiry. Considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that no interference is required. Since the petitioner was in government employment, the charges levelled in the disciplinary proceedings have to be tested keeping in mind - 4 - the enforcement of discipline and the level of integrity. We are of the view that no case was made out by the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India specially considering the nature of misconduct committed by him. We agree with the view of the learned single judge. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single judge and, accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. Neyaz/- (J.B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)