IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11359 of 2001 MAHENDRA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6/ 24-Sep-08 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By the impugned order contained in Annexure-12 dated 30.06.2001 the petitioner, a Junior Engineer has been dismissed from service by way of punishment in a duly instituted disciplinary proceeding on the charge that in the transaction involving removal of 90.615 M. T. of iron rods valued at Rs.13.8 Lacs in favour of one fake Junior Engineer, Sri Kameshwar Singh on the basis of forged hand receipt, he had significant role and that he should not have obeyed the wrong order of the Assistant Engineer authorizing removal of the iron rods in favour of a fake Junior Engineer, Sri Kameshwar Singh. In the departmental enquiry the superior officers were not examined as witnesses and from the admitted facts it is clear that this petitioner, a Junior Engineer was made in charge of the concerned stores and he had to allow removal of articles from the stores on the authorization issued by the Assistant Engineer. The materials on record which is also noticed in the enquiry report include a letter dated 3.8.1993 issued by the 2 Additional Commissioner of the Water Resources Department which fastens the responsibility upon the Executive Engineer from under whom the materials are to be delivered to depute a qualified Assistant Engineer who has at least 6 to 7 years of service left to personally meet the Executive Engineer who has requisitioned for the articles for verification of the authority letter. In this case, admittedly, the Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer who were proceeded against and have been punished did not do their duty. Annexure-4, the preliminary enquiry report shows that it was the petitioner who in a casual meeting with one Junior Engineer from Irrigation Division, Garhi where the iron rods were supposed to go, disclosed the transaction in question relating to transfer of iron rods in August, 1998 and that led to discovery of the entire fraudulent transaction. In the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner candidly accepted that he was in charge of the stores and that he had allowed the materials to be loaded and taken out of the stores on the basis of orders of the Assistant Engineer. He, however, admitted that he had no knowledge of the relevant Rules, Circulars and Orders relating to stores and therefore he could not exercise the required caution of enquiring whether actual verification of authority letter had been made by the Assistant Engineer 3 in accordance with the directions of the Additional Commissioner contained in letter dated 3.8.1993. It has rightly been submitted that on the basis of materials collected during enquiry at best only a case of negligence could be made out against the petitioner. There is nothing to support the charge that he played an important role in the matter and there was no reason available with the petitioner to disobey the order of the Assistant Engineer because he had no means of knowing that the hand receipt or the authorization letter in favour Kameshwar Singh was fake and fraudulent. In view of the aforesaid discussions it is found that in the light of materials available on record the petitioner had only a minor role to play in the transaction and at best like some of the other employees whose punishments orders have been annexed as Annexure-13 series, he should have been awarded a minor punishment of realization of Rs. 50,000/-. The award of major punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner is found wholly unjustified and beyond all proportions because the major charge of being in conspiracy with the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer is based only upon suspicion and no reliable material. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of punishment contained in Annexure-12 as well as appellate order 4 contained in Annexure-14 are quashed. The petitioner would be treated to have been reinstated in service from the date of dismissal and must be given all consequential benefits. If the authorities so like, they may pass another order of punishment against the petitioner awarding him the same punishment of realization of Rs.50,000/- from him as has been awarded to some other employees. It is made clear that for passing a minor punishment against the petitioner no further proceeding or notice is required. It will be in the discretion of the authority concerned after perusing all the available materials. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)