MADAN MOHAN ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, who instead of filing the counter affidavit, as was directed under orders dated 5.4.2011, has produced the records of the departmental proceeding for perusal by the Court as also by the counsel for the petitioner and having perused the records learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions.

(2.) Petitioner at the relevant time served as Revenue Karmchari in the Barbara Kothi, Amaur Block of Purnea District. He is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 1653 dated 23.8.2004, Annexure-2 passed by the Collector, Purnea, whereunder he has been dismissed from service after conclusion of the departmental proceeding initiated against him vide charge-sheet dated 17.12.2003, Annexure-4. He is also aggrieved by the appellate order bearing Memo No. 83 dated 5.1.2008. Annexure-1, whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order has been rejected. Earlier petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding by the District Magistrate, Purnea under order bearing Memo No. 5223 dated 10th November, 2003, Annexure-3. Perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that three charges have been levelled against the petitioner. Charge No. 1 is about failure of the petitioner to distribute the red, green card to the landholder, beneficiary as also to deduct the surplus land from the Jamabandi of the landholder although Jamabandi of the surplus land stood already created in favour of the beneficiary. Charge Nos. 2 and 3 are also connected with Charge No. 1.

(3.) Having received the memo of charge dated 17.12.2003, Annexure-4 petitioner filed his written defence before the Enquiry Officer on 13.1.2004, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-5 to this application, perusal whereof indicates that he refuted the charge and submitted that he joined the post of Revenue Karmchari at Barhara Kothi on 1.4.1991 but Sri Sada Nand Singh who made over charge to him did not handover the red, green card to him which remained concealed in the Circle Office. He also submitted that after creation of the Jamabandi with respect to the surplus land in favour of the beneficiaries, same was not reduced from the Jamabandi of the landholder as the then Circle Officer verbally restrained him from doing so. Aforesaid defence of the petitioner was considered by the Enquiry Officer in the light of the written representation of the Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer with reference to Register-II and records of Jamabandi Case No. 127/1990-91 recorded a finding in the Enquiry Report that although Jamabandi of the surplus land stood created in favour of the beneficiary petitioner deliberately in order to help the landholder did not reduce the surplus land from the Jamabandi of the landholder on the basis of which the landholder continued to obtain revenue receipt for the surplus land till 31.3.2003 and relying on the receipts asserted his title and possession over the surplus land leading to a serious occurrence on 11.8.2003. In the enquiry-report the Enquiry Officer categorically held that had the petitioner deducted the surplus land from the Jamabandi of the landholder pursuant to the creation of Jamabandi for the surplus land in favour of the beneficiary vide record of Case No. 127/1990-91 there was no occasion for the landholder to obtain the rent receipt until 31.3.2003 and if no rent receipts would have been given to the landholder there could not have been any occurrence with regard to title and possession of the surplus land on 11.8.2003. Having received the Enquiry-Report Collector, Purnea, the Disciplinary Authority, issued second show-cause notice bearing Memo No. 1254 dated 20.7.2004, Annexure-7 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he be not dismissed in the light of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer under report dated 23.6.2004, Annexure-6.