TOESH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 9.4.1980, as contained in Annexure 8, the petitioner, who is an Assistant Godown Manager, working under the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (herein -after referred to as 'the Corporation') has been suspended, as directed by its Managing Director (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner has challenged it on the ground that the respondent No. 2 has no authority to do so and that the impugned order is also bad as no disciplinary proceeding has been started against him. The petitioner was appointed as a Government servant under the State of Bihar. His services were transferred to the Corporation which he joined as on deputation. He was incharge of certain godown and, according to the case of the respondents, he misused his office. In the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that he is absolutely innocent. In view of the limited scope of the present case, it is not necessary to go into the details of the allegations and counter allegations.

(2.) It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the State Government has delegated the power to start a disciplinary proceeding and to suspend officers on deputation to the Managing Director of the Corporation, as per letter dated 26.5.76 (Annexure C) who is its Chief Executive Officer, and the Managing Director (Respondent No. 2) after being satisfied that a serious illegality has been committed by the petitioner has put him under suspension as an interim measure in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. A decision to commence a criminal proceeding as also a departmental proceeding against the petitioner was taken and the matter has been referred to the police. It is further said that in accordance with the decision, a disciplinary proceeding has also been initiated and charges were served on the petitioner which he refused to receive.

(3.) So far as the question whether a disciplinary proceeding has been started against the petitioner or not, the statement in the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 3 who is the Chief of Vigilance of the Corporation is relevant. He has asserted that a proceeding had been initiated and charges were framed and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. It is further said in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit that a copy of the charges was sent to Biharsharif for being served on the petitioner, but the latter refused to receive the copy in the evening of 26.6.80. A fresh attempt was made to serve on the next date when the petitioner attended the office, but he again refused to accept it. A report to that effect addressed to the District Manager, Nalanda, and a copy of the charges framed have been annexed as annexures to the counter affidavit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the various affidavits, I am satisfied that the case of the respondents in this regard is correct.