- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the writ petitioner/ Respondent.
(2.) Appellant is the State, aggrieved by the operative part of the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7273 of 2011 and another analogous case rendered by the learned Writ Court whereby, while quashing the order dated 03.09.2011 of dismissal from service, the matter has been remitted to the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision on the quantum of punishment.
(3.) The checkered history of the litigation is referred to here under for proper appreciation of the issue in this appeal: Writ Petitioner (respondent herein), an accounts clerk in Public Works Department, Koderma Division, appointed in the year 1981 was proceeded departmentally for certain charges relating to the year 1991- 1993, while he was posted at Koderma. He was also placed under suspension. During pendency of the inquiry, he approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 926 of 2003, which was disposed of with a direction upon the Respondents to conclude the inquiry in a time bound manner. The inquiry led to his dismissal by order dated 03.12.2003. This was made subject matter of challenge in W.P.(S) No. 1057 of 2004. The learned Writ Court quashed the dismissal order but observed that Respondents are not debarred from undertaking a fresh departmental proceeding. The State went in appeal being L.P.A. No. 806 of 2004. Learned Division Bench refused to interfere in the impugned judgment and directed the petitioner to be taken back in service and at the same time to conclude the inquiry in time bound manner, where after petitioner was reinstated in service. There was an interregnum, so far as the departmental inquiry was concerned. Thereafter petitioner was again suspended on 24.04.2010 and proceeded with regard to the same misconduct for the same period. Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1398 of 2011seeking stay of the departmental proceeding till the criminal case instituted against him is decided. However, petitioner was dismissed from service on 03.09.2011, which was the subject matter in W.P.(S) No. 7273 of 2011. Petitioner was being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 420,409,466,467,468,471 and 120B of the I.P.C in connection with Koderma (Tilaiya) P.S. Case No. 328 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 526 of 2001. He stood acquitted vide judgment dated 30.03.2012 rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma as the prosecution had not been able to substantiate the charges on the basis of evidence as the prosecution had adduced only one witness i.e., the Investigating Officer and no other. Few other relevant facts needs to be noticed here under; that petitioner refunded an amount of Rs.88,320/- with 12% interest i.e., the amount deposited in his account relating to retirement benefit of some of the employees. This was part of the chages in the departmental proceeding and was one of the charge in criminal proceeding. Apart from that, a certificate proceeding had been initiated by order dated 29.11.2010 for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,68,794/- from the petitioner, which is still pending. In these background, it is important to refer to the charges which petitioner faced in the departmental proceeding. The memo dated 24.04.2010 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Hazaribag inter alia contained the following charges: (1) Petitioner during his period of posting as Accounts Clerk at the Road Division, Koderma had committed financial irregularity totaling Rs.12,11,321/- relating to pension / gratuity/ earned leave encashment etc. by misappropriating it from the State exchequer. (2) Petitioner had not made available the important official records of Road Division, Koderma relating to fraudulent withdrawal which are messenger book of the year 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001; bill register for the year 1999-2000 and allotment register from the year 1999-2000. (3) The salary acquittance roll pages were not certified nor properly kept. (4) Relevant pages of salary acquittance roll, which contained the mention of fraudulent withdrawal were torn and missing. (5)Relevant pages containing the fraudulent withdrawal from the bill register were also torn and missing. (6) The delinquent employee by not maintaining the salary acquittance roll; tearing and causing disappearance of relevant pages of messenger book, bill register and allotment register and not being able to produce it, had caused disappearance of evidence to conceal the fraudulent withdrawal. All these charges were found to be established as per the inquiry report.;