ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.:–

I.A. No. 7212 of 2018

Heard Mr. Nirmal Kumar, learned advocate for the respondent-appellant.

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned.

The application stands allowed.

L.P.A. No. 1333 of 2018

2. The appellant/corporation has questioned the judgment dated 14.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.03.2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 23434 of 2013 whereby the punishment imposed on the respondent by order dated 19.06.2009 by the Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation as well as the order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the appellate authority, affirming the order of punishment has been set aside on the ground of charges being vague and the respondent not having been served with any opportunity of knowing the reason for and responding to the disciplinary authority differing with the opinion of the enquiry officer.

3. The respondent was subjected to a departmental proceeding on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau in connection with irregularities which were found in the upliftment and the distribution of foodgrains under the two schemes of the Government viz. Annapurna and Antyodya Schemes in the Dighwara Nagar Panchayat in the district of Chapra.

4. On a preliminary enquiry when it was found that there were some irregularities, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent, as he during the aforesaid check period, served as Incharge Manager of the Corporation at Saran.

5. From the charge-memo which was served upon the respondent, it appears that sample of foodgrains was taken by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau for coming to the conclusion that persons who had to be given the benefit of such claims were left high and dry whereas undeserving persons took advantage of the aforesaid scheme of the Government which was meant for the benefit of the last man in the row.

6. This memo of charge was found to be absolutely vague by the learned Single Judge in as much as details were not provided in the aforesaid charge-memo regarding the method of assessment of the irregularities in the upliftment and distribution of foodgrains. The basis for coming to such conclusion about the irregularities was made after the assessment of the sample of the foodgrains. Though this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge but if the sample was the basis for forming an opinion in the preliminary enquiry by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, it could have been only with respect to the quality of foodgrains and not with respect to the upliftment and distribution of such foodgrains at concessional price to the needy in accordance with the aforenoted beneficial schemes of the Government.

7. The enquiry report which was brought on record by the respondent as Annexure-8 further reflects that the opinion was arrived at on the basis of the statistics collected from the centre which was under the charge of the respondent.

8. However, while forming an opinion and submitting a report against the respondent, the enquiry officer clearly stated in his report that the doubts with respect to non-implementation of the scheme in letter and spirit was never refuted by the respondent totally and therefore the charges raised against him were found to be partially proved.

9. The respondent appears to have raised the issue that if this was the tenor of the enquiry report, and the disciplinary authority proceeded to differ with such report, it was of utmost necessity that the grounds for differing with such enquiry report ought to have been communicated to the respondent for him to reply to the same. That not having been done, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the proceedings stood vitiated and therefore the orders passed by the disciplinary and the appellate authority became suspect as having been passed without observance o