HARIDWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(JHAR)-2009-1-118
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on January 15,2009

HARIDWAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BY Court. - This appeal was proceeded departmentally for the following charges: (I) Appellant took the benefit of annual increment without passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination since 9.2.1975, whereas he passed the examination on 1.2.1980 and was eligible for the same thereafter. (II) Without being eligible, he took the benefit of first time bound promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1981. (III) He was directed to pay the amount taken by him in excess wrongly but he failed to do so. (IV) He took the house rent allowances, while occupying Government quarter. (V) He took the salary in excess by showing wrong pay scale of 4th pay revision w.e.f. 1.4.1981. The petitioner was given opportunity to explain the charges and after adopting due procedure the disciplinary authority found the said charges proved against him and awarded the following punishment: - A. The amount, which was paid to the petitioner in excess to which he was entitled, be recovered from his salary. B. The amount which was received by the petitioner towards the house rent allowances which was illegally paid to him be recovered and adjusted from his salary. C. Stoppage of two annual increments and entry to that effect in the service book with cumulative effect.
(2.) THE appellant challenged the said order of punishment in C.W.J.C. No. 9828 of 2000(P). The said writ petition, after hearing both the parties, was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 5.5.2004. Learned Single Judge was convinced with the finding of the disciplinary authority except the part of the punishment of recovery of the payment of excess amount paid to him on the basis of his 2nd time bound promotion. Learned Single Judge held that 2nd time bound promotion was not granted on the petitioner's misrepresentation. He modified the order of punishment and set aside that part of the punishment of recovery of the excess amount paid on account of 2nd time bound promotion.
(3.) IN this appeal, the petitioner has taken the ground that in fact he was not in occupation of any Government quarter. He was residing in a vacant cattle -shed and the contrary findings by the disciplinary authority is wholly erroneous and unsustainable.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.