Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner was working as UDC when he was suspended vide Ex.2 on 30.4.1987 in contemplation of the enquiry. Charge-sheet was issued vide Ex.3 on 5.6.1987 on the allegation that he had made certain interpolation in the accounts of advance receipts and had used about Rs. 35,000/- for himself and despite the repeated reminders he had not deposited the total amount of Rs. 37,510/- in the Government Treasury. He had denied the charges vide Ex.4 stating therein that he had not interpolated any accounts. The advance amount used to be received under the signatures of the Assistant Engineer and spent as per his direction. According to the delinquent official, if at all there was any temporary misappropriation, that was by the Assistant Engineer and not by the petitioner who was not concerned with the received or spending of amount. He had further stated that the documents as asked by him vide letter dated 18.7.1987 had not been supplied to him. Reply of the charge-sheet was filed on 29.4.1988. He further states that as per Ex. 5 & 6, the advance receipts were issued from Shri S.P. Singh. Assistant Engineer to whom even the letters were being written by the department for refund of the amount.

(2). Enquiry Officer was appointed vide Ex.7, prosecution witnesses J.P. Mandana A.En. was examined on 16.7.1988, one Bahadur Singh was examined on 26.7.1988 and Suresh Chand was also examined. One S.K. Gupta was also examined on 2.9.1988, S.P. Singh, the then A.En. was examined on 12.9.1988. The Executive Engineer was examined who had stated that the excess advance has been deposited back by the petitioner. The Executive Engineer as per the copy of the statement attached with the writ petition had stated that the temporary advance is normally drawn on the demand of the A.En. on his requisition which is accountable by the A.En. He had stated that it was A.En. who had violated the rules. It was further stated that he had been writing to be A.En. to deposit the excess amount back.

(3). Show cause notice was issued vide Ex.10 dated 27.1.1989. The Enquiry Officer had submitted his report as attached with the writ petition holding that it had been proved that the temporary advance was withdrawn and proper account was not maintained and the amount was kept with the official instead of depositing in the bank and on having been charge-sheeted, the amount has been returned back in protest and that the original vouchers have not been kept properly. It was further observed by the Enquiry Officer that keeping of the account in the office of A.En. was irregular. There was no coordination between the two departments, neither there was any register, nor cash book, nor ledger book nor there was any control of the receipt of advanced money, entries are not properly made. Suggestion was given that the procedure should be adopted as to maintain accounts properly in future.

(4). Reply to show cause was submitted by the petitioner stating therein (1) that the documents as summoned by the petitioner were not called for and if the documents would have been called, the report could not have been made against the petitioner; (2) he had further submitted in the reply that he was not concerned with the amount in question and it was the A.En. who could be held responsible if at all there was any temporary mis-appropriation; (3) that the report is not based on documents but on oral evidence; (4) principles of natural justice were violated.

(5). It is submitted by the petitioner that except one Bahadur Singh witness, the opportunity was not given to the petitioner to cross-examine any other witness whereas reliance has been placed on the statement of all other witness as well. In reply submitted by the respondents, this fact has been denied. In the rejoinder to the said denial, the petitioner has come up with the plea that except the statement of Bahadur Singh which was recorded in the hands of the Enquiry Officer, statements of all other witnesses were not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document