IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6683 of 2002 7 9.2.2009 Renu Makkar, daughter of Ram Lal Arora, resident of Mohalla Patna City Chowk, P.S. Patnacity Chowk, District Patna, aged about 47 years. .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1 2. The Chief Claim Officer-cum-Conducting Officer, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1 3. District Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation, Vaishali 4. The District Manager, Rural, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation, Patna 5. The Chief of Administration, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation,. Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1 6. The General Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation,. Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1 .... RESPONDENTS ------- For the Petitioner : Mr Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr.Advocate For the Respondents : Mr R.P.Birnaway, Advocate ------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.2.2002 contained in Annexure-6 whereby she has been dismissed from service on the post of Assistant Manager in the respondent Corporation, purportedly on the basis of her defence and report of the enquiry officer in a departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced, inter alia, the following two submissions to assail the impugned 2 order of dismissal. First, it has been submitted that a perusal of enquiry report contained in Annexure-3 would show that petitioner was held to have defalcated goods of the Corporation worth Rs.1,72,083.26 paise only but the disciplinary authority in the impugned order has recorded that charges of defalcation to the extent of Rs.4,22,801.46 paise have been established and on that account it has expressed its opinion that wherever petitioner is posted in a district, defalcation has taken place in appreciable quantity. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, such finding which is basis for dismissing the petitioner from service is based upon non est facts and merely upon certain allegations which were not the subject matter of the departmental enquiry. Secondly, it has been submitted that after receipt of second show cause notice dated 17.1.2002, petitioner had made a written request on 2.2.2002 vide Annexure-5 for extending the earlier period of a fortnight by a further period of two weeks so that petitioner could file her second show cause. Annexure-5 shows that such request was made by the petitioner on the ground that both her children were unwell and in support of such plea medical prescriptions were also enclosed. The impugned order was passed 10 days after 3 Annexure-5 but it is surprising that petitioner was not given any intimation nor the time period was extended even by a week or 10 days. On behalf of the respondent Corporation it has been submitted that under the rules petitioner has a right of seeking review before the Managing Director of the Corporation, the disciplinary authority, who has passed the impugned order of dismissal. On a careful reading of the impugned order contained in Annexure-6 and after considering deemed refusal of petitioner’s request for extending the time period for filing of second show cause, this Court finds that the matter requires to be remitted back to the disciplinary authority, the Managing Director. This Court has not applied its mind to the submissions that finding in respect of defalcation recorded in the enquiry report should not be accepted. Such plea can be raised by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority by way of second show cause which must be filed along with a copy of this order before the disciplinary authority within six weeks from today. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority will be at liberty to consider all the materials on record including petitioner’s second show cause and pass appropriate orders as per law. 4 In view of aforesaid discussions, the impugned order contained in Annexure-6 is quashed but consequential benefits shall await fresh decision of the disciplinary authority. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk