- (1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that main grievance ventilated in the present petition is that though in the departmental appeal proceedings the order passed by an enquiry officer (Annexure -8 to the memo of the present petition dated 17th of May, 2000) is quashed and set aside by the appellate authority vide Annexure -10 dated 5th of August, 2002 and despite the fact that no criminal proceeding has been concluded against the present petitioner straightway the order of recovery of Rs. 78,364/ - has been passed vide order dated 17th of October, 2000 which is at Annexure -9 to the memo of the present petition, therefore, the present petition has been preferred for quashing and set aside the order at Annexure -8 to the memo of the present petition. This petition is restricted mainly for quashing the Annexure -9 only.
(2.) I have heard counsel for the respondents who has vehemently submitted that because of the lethargic approach, on the part of the present petitioner, a theft was committed of the items worth Rs. 78,364/ - and, therefore, departmental proceedings were initiated against present petitioner in which he was punished vide order at Annexure -8 dated 17th of May, 2000 and two increments of the present petitioner were stopped with all permanent effect and therefore, order was passed at Annexure -9 dated 17th of October, 2000, which is just proper, legal, equitable and inconsonance with the fact and law and therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed. Having heard the counsel for the both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I have quashed and set aside the order passed by concerned respondent authority dated 17th October, 2000 (Annexure -9 to the memo of the present petition) mainly for the following facts and reasons: - (i) Petitioner was working as Nazir with respondent no. 3. Because of the theft committed in the office of respondent no. 3, departmental proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner, which was concluded, dated 17th of May, 2000 (Annexure -8 to the memo of the present petition whereby two increments of the present petitioner were stopped with all permanent effect. (ii) It appears that thereafter the petitioner preferred departmental appeal in which an order was passed, by the respondent no. 2 who is appellate authority, at Annexure -10 to the memo of the present petition dated 5th of August, 2002, whereby appellate authority has observed that looking to order dated 17th of May, 2000 (Annexure -8). There is no sufficient evidence for bringing home the charges levelled against the petitioner. Some more evidence will be required. Ambiguous are the charges levelled against the present petitioner and, therefore, the matter was remanded for afresh decision by respondent no. 3. Thus, the order at Annexure -8 to the memo of the present petition was quashed and set aside by the appellate authority and the matter was remanded. Thus, nothing is concluded against the present petitioner, in the departmental proceedings. (iii) It also appears that some criminal proceedings are also pending and the charge -sheet has been filed in accordance with provision under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case is pending before the concerned trial Court. Nonetheless, vide order dated 17th October, 2000 (Annexure -9) respondent no. 3 has straightway, without giving any opportunity being heard to the present petitioner passed an order for deduction of Rs. 78,364/ - from the amount to be paid to the present petitioner, as if, all the charges of civil or criminal proceedings are concluded against the present petitioner. Order at Annexure -9 is patently erroneous and de hors the fact and the law. Every proceeding against the petitioner is pending. Nothing is concluded. Neither civil proceeding nor criminal proceeding is finalized and arbitrarily this order at Annexure -9 has been passed by respondent no. 3, dated 17th October, 2000.
(3.) FOR the aforesaid facts and reasons and looking to the appellate order, in departmental inquiry at Annexure -10, and looking to the facts that criminal proceedings are also pending against the petitioner, the order passed by respondent no. 3, is hereby quashed and set aside which is dated 17th October, 2000 (Annexure -9 to the memo of the present petition) and liberty is reserved with the respondents to pass necessary order in accordance with law upon conclusion of the departmental proceeding, initiated against the present petitioner and after giving opportunity being heard to the present petitioner.;