SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Shahi, the learned A.C. to A.A.G. appearing on behalf of the State.
(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 29.03.2008 by which order of recovery of amount of Rs. 3,14,200/- from the petitioner has been made and two increments from the salary of the petitioner has been ordered to be withheld with cumulative effect.
(3.) Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner assumed charge of Minor Distribution, Sub-Division No. 2, Ghatshila, Galudih in the District of Singhbhum on 01.03.1997. The petitioner was show-caused vide Memo No. 2991 dated 29.07.2005 wherein charge of purchasing cement without requirement was made against him. It was alleged that the petitioner has requisitioned in total 6,000 bags of cement by which only 632 bags of cement were actually used and rest 5,368 bags of cement remained unutilized. As the same has been purchased without need and subsequently the said cement became set and was, thus, spoiled and became unusable, the petitioner made representation on 01.08.2005 disputing and denying the allegation against the petitioner. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer has found that the charge against the petitioner has been proved. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel assailed the impugned order on the ground that inspite of the request made by this petitioner for supply of the document, the document has not been supplied to the petitioner. He further submits that no enquiry proceeding whatsoever was ever initiated, conducted or held inasmuch as no date of hearing or any date for presentation of document or explanation was ever notified or held by the enquiry officer. He submits that based on his reply the impugned order has been passed and according to him there is violation of principle of natural justice. To substantiate his argument, he has relied in the judgment rendered in the case of "Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India" reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427. Paragraph nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: "24. This Court finds that there is a lot of substance in the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show-cause proceeding. A show-cause proceeding is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice. 25. Expressions like "a reasonable opportunity of making objection" or "a reasonable opportunity of defence" have come up for consideration before this Court in the context of several statutes. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India, of course in the context of service jurisprudence, reiterated certain principles which are applicable in the present case also. 26. S.R. Das, C.J. speaking for the unanimous Constitution Bench in Khem Chand held that the concept of "reasonable opportunity" includes various safeguards and one of them, in the words of the learned Chief Justice, is: (AIR p. 307, para 19) "(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based;" 27. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show-cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceedings become an idle ceremony. 28. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against." ;