- (1.) CHALLENGING the orders dated 02.06.2011 and 27.11.2012, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) ON 24.01.2010, a case was registered at the instance of the present petitioner alleging theft of computer and other articles from the office. An inquiry was instituted in the matter and the inquiry report dated 13.05.2010 was submitted holding the petitioner guilty of negligence. A showcause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.09.2010 which was replied by the petitioner. The reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and the petitioner was held guilty by letter dated 02.06.2011. By order dated 27.11.2012 recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,32,349/ has been ordered from the petitioner and codelinquent Ravneshwar Mishra. A counter affidavit has been filed stating as under: 11. "That, it is humbly stated and submitted that after considering the report of enquiry committee and the explanation given by the petitioner, it is found that the negligence had been made by both Sri Amar Nath Jha and Sri Raneshwar mishra, on whom, there was full responsibility to take all action to do proper arrangement for the safety of the precious article of the Government. 12. That, it is humbly stated and submitted that according to the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 49 (iv), recovery can be made from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders. 13. That, it is humbly stated and submitted that after considering the show cause of the petitioner, the same has been found unsatisfactory and order has been passed according to Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 49 (iv) for recovery of the amount of the theft articles from the petitioner and one Raneshwar mishra vide memo no. 693 dated 02.06.2011 (Annexure5 to the writ petition)."
(3.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;