S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: - - For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing the office order issued vide KA. AA.S.NIG/SARA -5071/01 -245 dated 4.9.2003 issued by Deputy Secretary, Public Works Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder an order has been passed under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer and the second show cause filed by the petitioner whereby and whereunder decision has been taken, the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner and leave salary of the petitioner has been withheld and further 10% amount of pension has also been ordered to be deducted from the pension of the petitioner and further an order has been passed to recover Rs. 2,40,63,933.00 after filing certificate case against the petitioner. Further respondents may be restrained to take any coercive action against the petitioner on the basis of office order issued under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules dated 4.9.2003 i.e. at Annexure -8 of the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed in the year, 1965 on the post of Junior Engineer in Public Works Department. At the relevant time he was posted as junior engineer. He was transferred from Deoghar on 28.8.1998. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 20.12.2001 and a charge -memo was given to him on the following allegations: - - (i) while the petitioner was posted at Deoghar, Bitumen of the amount of Rs 15.95 lakhs was misappropriated as no adjustment of that amount was made in the office, and (ii) while the petitioner was posted at Deoghar he had taken advance of Rs 1.24 lakhs and that amount was not adjusted and as such he had misappropriated -that amount.
(2.) AN enquiry was conducted by the Chief Engineer and the charge levelled against the petitioner was not found proved. As several aspects were not examined by the enquiry officer, a second enquiry was initiated and it was found that there was misappropriation of Rs. 2,40,63,933.00. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the charge against the petitioner was serious and in departmental enquiry the charge was found proved. This is a case in which huge public money has been misappropriated by the petitioner and therefore, order of recovery of Rs. 2,40,63,933.00 was ordered.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;