- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.8.2000 (Annexure - 22) passed by the respondent No. 2, The Chief Conservator of Forest cum Managing Director, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. , whereby he has been dismissed from service. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Accountant on 25.5.1978, was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer in October, 1987 and posted at Minor Forest Produce Project, Ranchi. He was placed under suspension on 20.3.1993 and vide memo no. 62(8) dated 15.6.1993 charge sheet was served upon him. He approached the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1477 of 1994(R) challenging the suspension which was however disposed of with a direction to the respondents to conclude the proceedings within a period of 6 months from the date of filing of show cause by the petitioner vide order dated 23.12.1994(Annexure -2). The petitioner furnished his show cause on 19.1.1995 and thereafter, on 15.9.1995 another charge sheet was served upon him vide Annexure -7. The said proceeding ultimately led to his dismissal vide order dated 28.9.1995, which were assailed in C.W.J.C. No. 2527 of 1996(R). The order of dismissal was set aside on 25.2.2000 by the Patna High Court directing the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of reply to the show cause by the petitioner and to conclude the same within a period of 4 months from the date of communication of the order. It was also mentioned that if the petitioner makes any dilatory tactics to flout the time frame as mentioned above, the Enquiry Officer so appointed would be entitled to proceed ex -parte against the petitioner also and, if possible, the inquiry proceeding should be conducted on day to day basis to maintain the time frame. Subsequent, thereto the petitioner joined service 10.3.2000 and new Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 25.3.2000 vide Annexure -6. The petitioner was asked to reply to both the proceedings vide order dated 3.4.2000(Annexure -8). Petitioner, accordingly submitted his reply and supplementary reply vide Annexure -9 dated 24.4.2000 and 26.4.2000. The Enquiry Officer informed the petitioner that proceeding would be held on 19.5.2000. On that day, it is the contention of the petitioner, that he was asked to furnish the list of concerned documents and list of witnesses and, thereafter, the matter was adjourned for the next date of inquiry to be held at Ranchi on 23.5.2000 and 24.5.2000. According to the petitioner, he was supplied statement of 3 range Officers namely P.K. Naik, Bharatendu Kumar and Ghanshyam Bhagat on 20.5.2000 for cross examination. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that the inquiry was concluded and the inquiry report was submitted on 26.6.2000 and forwarded to the petitioner on 29.6.2000 vide Annexure -20. The petitioner submitted his reply on 31.7.2000(Annexure -21). However, the impugned order of dismissal from service has been passed on 26.8.2000 vide Annexurre -22 with further direction to realize a sum of Rs. 9,42,200 from petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that the inquiry proceeding has been held without complying the Principle of Natural Justice. Statements of witnesses were recorded behind his back and the petitioner was never given opportunity to lead his evidence before the Enquiry Officer. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer relied upon various documents including vouchers, cheque book etc. which were never produced or proved during the course of departmental inquiry. It is further submitted that though in the inquiry proceeding 7 witnesses are said to have been produced on behalf of the Presenting Officer but the petitioner never got opportunity to cross examine them. They did not depose during the course of inquiry proceeding and the petitioner never got an opportunity to cross examine them. It is further contention of the petitioner that after submission of the inquiry report and second show cause petitioner filed a detailed reply which the disciplinary authority failed to take into consideration while passing the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has assailed the impugned order of dismissal as being wholly arbitrary, illegal and in complete violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Bijlani V. Union of India & others reported in 2006(5) SCC 88 in order to advance his submission that the disciplinary authority has to deal with the contention of the delinquent 'sstatement in his reply before passing an order of punishment, which must show application of mind. He further relies upon the Judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi V. Punjab National Bank & others reported in 2009(2) SCC 570, para 23 thereof to submit that the order of disciplinary authority must show reasons for passing an order of dismissal after dealing with the contention of the delinquent as also application of mind on the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent, Mr. Prabhash Kumar, on the other hand has submitted that the delinquent was holding the post of Assistant Accounts Officer under the Respondents - Corporation in Minor Forest Produce Project, Ranchi for the relevant period 1989 - 1992 and after his transfer it was detected that he had indulged in embezzlement of public money for which departmental proceeding was initiated vide Office order dated 15.6.1993 for the period 1991 -92. The charges related to serious misconduct of obtaining advance through cheques in the name of the petitioner as also bearer cheques for execution of the work relating to the Minor Forest Produce Project under the respondent - corporation, which were being executed through the Range Officers '. As such, it was detected that a sum of Rs.2,50,200/ - had been misappropriated by the petitioner in connivance with the Divisional Manager without making such advance to the Range Officers ' concerned who were supposed to execute the work and without adjustment of such advance through valid vouchers etc showing their physical utilization. It is submitted on his behalf that his successor, Diwakar Jha detected such act of huge embezzlement of public money and on inquiry and audit, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.;