S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against penal order contained in memo No. 860 dated 5th July, 2000, whereby the respondents inflicted the punishment of censure recovery of l/3rd value of stores stolen articles from the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,30,911/ - in 30 installments @ Rs. 4864/ -per month.
(2.) AS the case can be disposed of an short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, claim and counter claim of the parties, except the relevant one. While the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer. Mechanical Subdivision, Bokaro, certain theft took place at the Baldih Pahar of Public Health and Engineering Department. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally under Rule 55 of the Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal, Rules. 1930. Charge -sheet was communicated, vide Government Resolution contained in Memo No. 852 dated 9th Sept. 1996 and day -to -day enquiry was held. After the enquiry the petitioner was not informed of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the impugned punishment order was passed, vide Memo No. 860 dated 5th July, 2000.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions to assail the order of punishment: - - (i) The charge being vague, the petitioner cannot be punished for vague charges; (ii) The proceeding having initiated under Rule 55 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, even if a minor punishment of recovery is passed, the authorities should have supplied the copy of enquiry report before issuance of order of punishment; and (iii) Even if the impugned order contained in Memo No. 860 dated 5th July. 2000 is treated as a minor punishment, the respondents should have considered the matter in proper aspect after appropriate application of mind in terms with rule 55A of the Discipline and Appeal Rules.;