S. Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Being aggrieved by judgement and order dated 08.10.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No.17558 of 2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, appellant/petitioner has preferred this L.P.A.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that appellant/petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager on 17.12.1978 and was subsequently, appointed on the post of unskilled Khalashi by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer in the Bhagalpur Area Board. Appellant/petitioner thereafter passed the departmental examination and was appointed as Bill Clerk with effect from 01.01.1982 at Bhagalpur and subsequently transferred to Patna where he took charge as a Bill Clerk on 30.04.2010 and started working as Revenue Cashier w.e.f. 15.07.2011.

4. In an internal audit conducted by the Board huge financial irregularities and misappropriation of several lacs of Rupees was detected and appellant/petitioner was held to be primarily responsible for embezzlement of Rs. 43,48,296/- and he was put under suspension by order dated 25.6.2015 and an FIR being Kotwali P.S. Case No.283/2015 was also lodged against him.

5. By resolution dated 09.06.2016, the disciplinary authority General Manager (HR/Adm.) decided to initiate departmental proceeding against appellant/petitioner and framed four charges against him and appointed Sri Rishi Prasad, Chief Engineer, SBPDCL, Patna as Enquiry Officer, and same was served upon appellant/petitioner alongwith memo of charge (Prapatra Ka) with statement of imputation of misconduct as well as name of witnesses on basis of which, charge framed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. General Manager (HR/Adm.) was to be established.

6. During pendency of departmental proceeding, Enquiry Officer Sri Rishi Prasad, Chief Engineer, SBPDCL, Patna retired on 31.12.2016 and thereafter by order dated 17.01.2017 issued by the General Manager (HR/Adm.) Sadat Hasan Mintu, Land Acquisition Officer, SBPDCL, Patna was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of department, who were cross-examined by the appellant/petitioner and one document was also exhibited in support of charges and on the basis of materials placed before the Enquiry Officer as well as considering the defence statement and evidences produced on behalf of delinquent employee, the Enquiry Officer found three charges to be proved and one charge not to be proved and submitted his enquiry report dated 14.06.2017.

7. Second show cause notice dated 21.09.2017 was issued by DGM (HR/Adm.) to the appellant/petitioner alongwith a copy of enquiry report to submit his reply within 15 days with respect to finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, in which three charges were found to be proved.

8. Petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 03.10.2017 against the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.

9. Original records of departmental proceedings were summoned by this court and same was produced and perusal of which reveals that a proposal dated 03.11.2017 was prepared by the Section Officer of the department, in which it is noted that decision is to be taken with respect to reply filed by the delinquent with respect to second show cause and the Section Officer himself noted in the file that the reply filed by the delinquent is not satisfactory and send said proposal to the DGM (HR/Adm.), who noted in the file as follows:—

(i) Jh vfuy dqekj flag dk vkpj.k ,oa daiuh lsod ds vkpj.k ds vuqdqy ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA vkjksi iw.kZr% izekf.kr gSA

(ii) izekf.kr vkjksiksa ds fy, CCA Rules ds fu;e 14 ds (vixi) rgr n.M fuèkkZfjr djuk pkgsaxsA
lqjs'k dqekj 'kekZ
13-11-17
mi egkizcaèkd ¼ekñlñ@iz'kkñ½
i`"B 131@fVñ ls ysdj xr i`"B ij miLFkkfir dk;kZy; fVIi.kh ,oa izLrko d`I;k voyksdu djuk pkgsaxsA
izLrqr lafpdk esa Jh vfuy dqekj flag] rnsu foi=k fyfid lg&jksdM+iky] fo|qr vkiwfÙkZ ize.My] ckadhiqj lEizfr fuyafcr ds fo:) xaHkhj forh; vfu;ferrk ,oa jktLo ds xcu ls lacafèkr vkjksi dks ysdj xfBr vkjksi ,oa mlds vkèkkj ij