SATYENDRA NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner when challenged the departmental proceeding initiated, show cause notice issued as contained in Annexures 3 and 5, has also challenged the order dated 5th April, 1989 (Annexure 6) whereby he was dismissed as also the appellate order dated 24th July, 1989 whereby the appeal was rejected.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case shows that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide charge -sheet dated 25th July, 1988. Three sets of charges were levelled against him, the first charge related to illegal claim of travelling allowance; second charge related to giving wrong information relating to journey and the third charge related to theft of Rs. 2,000/- from the house of Superintendent of Police (Trainee) while he was posted as orderly.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner placed reliance on the enquiry report and the order of punishment to suggest that the other charges were not specific, not based on any evidence and were framed by Sri Sabharwal to punish the petitioner in one or other way. It was submitted that Sri Sabharwal being the complainant, he having lodged FIR, should not have passed the final order of dismissal. One or other decision of the Supreme Court was relied upon to suggest that the departmental proceeding based on biasness or where there is a likelihood of biasness it cannot be ground to inflict punishment. One of the grounds taken is that no charge is actually made out against the petitioner. In this respect, reliance was placed at para 13 of the enquiry report to suggest that the other witnesses accepted that the petitioner was given specific date for movement.