CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.4624 OF 1996 (In the matter of an application Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.) ******** RAM PRAMOD SINGH Son of Sri Rajendra Singh, resident of Village- Mananpur, P.S.-Runisaidpur, District-Sitamarhi. ---------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Officer cum Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Gandak Project, Bettiah. 5. Sri Parma Nand Prasad, Enquiry Officer, cum Circle Officer, Revenue Anchal, Bagha, District-West Champaran. 6. The Director, Revenue Administration, Water Resources Department Bihar Patna. -----------------Respondents ******** For The Petitioner : Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Advocate. For The Respondent :- Mr. J.P. Karn, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG-9 ********** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI *********** Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. Petitioner was a Revenue Tax Collector under the Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar. During routine inspection carried out in the circle where the petitioner was posted, certain discrepancies came to be noticed with regard to the revenue collection and the deposit made with the respondents State. Many 2 instances of defalcation of Government revenue came to the notice of the superiors. A decision was taken to draw a set of charges and proceed against the petitioner departmentally. Charge sheet is Annexure-2 and the number of charges drawn up against the petitioner were ten. Majority of them related to defalcation and one other charge was of not handing over charge after the order of transfer and defiance of the order of the superiors. 2. In the enquiry which was conducted against the petitioner, most of the charges have been found to be true. The enquiry report has been brought on record as Annexure-9 to the writ application. Based on the findings recorded therein punishment of dismissal came to be imposed. Even the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by a detailed reasoned order after hearing the petitioner. 3. In the present writ application the order of punishment contained in Annexure-14 and the order passed in appeal are under challenge. 4. First submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority did not take into consideration that by the time the enquiry was over, the petitioner had voluntarily deposited a substantial amount of 3 money from time to time. This ought to have been a mitigating circumstance in matter of award of punishment. The other objection against the punishment order is that it was the Deputy Collector who was the disciplinary authority in the matter but he forwarded the enquiry report to the superior and it is the Director Revenue Administration, Water Resources Department who imposed punishment and according to the petitioner, it falls foul of the law. His third contention is that looking at the long period of service petitioner ought to have been given a lenient punishment in the above stated circumstance. 5. So far as the first contention that the petitioner had deposited money and there was reason for delay in depositing those revenue collection are not matters which can be gone into by this Court at this stage in a writ application. In fact the defence put up by the petitioner also supports the findings of misappropriation or even temporary misappropriation if the deposit of the money by the petitioner is accepted. But that by itself does not establish the fact that the petitioner was innocent in his conduct. The Court can only look into the mechanism and the procedure adopted in 4 conducting the departmental proceeding and cannot sit in appeal or indulge in reappraisal of the evidence which the petitioner wants from this Court to do. This contention therefore, is fit to be rejected. 6. The other submission of the counsel that the Deputy Collector did not pass any order but forwarded the finding of the Enquiry Officer to the Director, Revenue which was not permissible. But on pointed question put to the petitioner as to who is the appointing authority, he does not have a clear answer because it is not a case where the punishment of dismissal has been imposed by an authority below the appointing authority. Since the Deputy Collector did not find himself competent to pass the order at his level he forwarded the findings to the Superior to look into the matter at their level. Consideration of an issue at a superior level cannot be said to be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner on the issue. 7. The third contention that due to long length of service of the petitioner there should have been a lesser punishment is also not available in the present case because it is a serious case of misappropriation of government revenue by a Revenue Tax Collector, not only on one occasion but 5 on several occasions which has been found to be true. Except for one charge of not handing over charge after transfer, the rest of nine charges basically relate to misappropriation of various amounts on various occasions. 8. In matters of such kind the Court ought not to take a lenient view. The view of the Division Bench of this Court in this regard has been brought to the attention of this Court which is a case of Subhash Chandra Singh Vs. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. reported in 2010(2) P.L.J.R. 342 and has application to the present case. 9. With no other illegality having been pointed out which goes to the root of the matter, no interference is required with the punishment order. 10. This writ application is dismissed as being devoid of merit, there will be no order as to costs however. Patna High Court Dated 16th of September, 2010 Anand Kr./NAFR (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)