CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.2646 OF 1994 *** CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH, SON OF SHRI BADRI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHADHA BASWANPATTI, POLICE STATION RATANPURA, DISTRICT SUPAUL ………………………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SPECIAL OFFICER -CUM- DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISION, KOSHI PROJECT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SAHARSA 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, REVENUE CIRCLE, KOSHI PROJECT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BHAVTIYAHI, SAHARSA ………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ********* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. B. K. CHOUDHARY, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. MANOJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS:- MR. ANSHUMAN SINGH, AC TO AAG III ****************** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. The petitioner worked as a Revenue Irrigation Inspector under the Water Resources Department. He joined at Kumar Ganj Tahsil, Saharsa (now in the district of Supaul) in December, 1979 and was posted there till March, 1987. During the period of his tenure, it has been alleged that the petitioner was responsible for defalcation of 2 Rs. 65,675.49/-. It is also alleged that he was responsible for the disappearance of the Remittance Register, Receipt Register, receipts of the Water tax collected by him. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner as also a criminal proceeding. In the criminal proceeding, the petitioner was discharged by order dated 20.08.1991 passed in Kishanpur Police Station Case No. 20 of 1987, on the ground that the Investigating Officer had not inspected the original registers and annexed it to the case diary to indicate that the defalcation was committed by the petitioner. The departmental proceedings was initiated by framing of the charges vide Memo No. 627 dated 19.06.1992 in which four charges were levelled against the petitioner. A show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has filed his reply which is Annexure 5 to the writ application. The main points that have been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not supplied the enquiry report and certain documents which he had demanded vide petition dated 13.01.1994 contained in Annexure 9 and as such the entire proceeding becomes vitiated on the ground of non-supply of the enquiry report 3 and the documents demanded by the petitioner. Out of the four charges that had been levelled against the petitioner, only two charges were proved. The main issue being that the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. The Court will take up this aspect of the matter first. At paragraph 28, the petitioner has stated that he was not given a copy of the enquiry report by the conducting Officer and was also not supplied certain documents. Annexure-9 is the petition/application filed for demand of those documents. In reply to the said allegations, it has been specifically stated on behalf of the State at paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the report of the enquiry conducted by Shri Sant Sharma, Circle Officer was handed over to the writ petitioner after it was furnished to the Deputy Collector vide letter no. 219 dated 22.07.1986. The contention of the petitioner is that the enquiry report ought to have been handed over to the petitioner after the institution of the departmental proceeding i.e. after framing of the charges and as such, the respondents cannot take the plea that they had handed over the enquiry/inspection report conducted by Shri Sharma even before the institution of the departmental proceeding. The entire inspection report and the enquiry report have been annexed as Annexures A to D to the 4 counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The show cause filed on behalf of the petitioner indicates that infact he was fully aware of the facts of the inspection report and his reply, therefore, refers to the materials in the inspection report. The plea taken in the show cause is that the petitioner was posted from the period 21.08.1979 to March, 1987 and the charges did not specify the amount that was allegedly defalcated during that period when the petitioner was posted in the said Tehsil. It has also been stated in the show cause that the petitioner could not meet the allegations that there was defalcation as the concerned documents and registers were not available and supplied to the petitioner for his inspection. With respect to the allegations regarding the disappearance of the documents of the Department which are maintained to show the deposit of water tax by the users, literally, no sort of defence has been raised on behalf of the petitioner. It has come on record that the Office of the petitioner was unlocked in the presence of other persons of the Department and an inventory was prepared regarding the documents found in the Office of the petitioner. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the defalcation relate to the period when the petitioner was posted has not been clarified in the 5 departmental proceeding has to be rejected on perusal of Annexures A and B. The inspection of the documents, the receipts and the actual amount deposited in the Treasury has been thoroughly verified on the basis of the receipts available and the period has been also specified in the inspection conducted by Shri Sharma. After inspection, the shortage has been found for the period when the petitioner was posted at Kumarganj Tehsil. The enquiry report is annexed as Annexure-D. On perusal of the enquiry report, this Court finds that each of the charges along with the reply of the petitioner has been discussed. In the enquiry report as well as paragraph 28 has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner had the opportunity to examine the inspection report, the enquiry report as well as the other documents referred to during the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has found that the petitioner has not deposited the amount of tax received during the relevant period in the Treasury. It cannot be argued on behalf of the petitioner that there is no material to show that the amount was actually received by the petitioner in view of the fact that it is unbelievable that for the period 1979-1986, no calculation was made for water tax. The inspection shows that the collection was made and some amount was also deposited. The Enquiry Officer comes to a clear finding that the petitioner was the Incharge 6 of the Office and he was to maintain the Remittance Registers, the Receipt Registers and other documents of the Office. Thus, it cannot be argued that the petitioner was not responsible for maintaining these documents/registers. In view of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it is clear that the points raised on behalf of the petitioner that he was not supplied the copy of the enquiry report is negated by the submission made at paragraph 6 and by the enquiry report itself. The findings with respect to the allegations regarding the disappearance of records from the Office of the petitioner also has been amply discussed in the proceeding and this Court finds no ground for interference with the findings. In view of the facts aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order terminating the petitioner issued vide Memo No. 73 dated 03.02.1994. In the result, this application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.) Patna High Court Dated, the 22nd April, 2010 N.A.F.R./Anand