JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 3486 of 2023

The instant interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of the petitioner, namely, Namita Nalini Baxla @ Namita Nalini Minz, who has died in course of pendency of the writ petition.

2. It has been submitted that the writ petitioner, namely, Namita Nalini Baxla @ Namita Nalini Minz has died leaving behind her legal heirs as referred at paragraph 5 to the instant application as such prayer has been made that the instant Interlocutory Application may be allowed since the right to sue still survives.

3. There is no objection on behalf of the State.

4. Considering the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application, the same is allowed.

5. Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition as per the details furnished at paragraph 5 of the instant interlocutory application.

6. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of.

W.P. (S) No. 6697 of 2014

7. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing order as contained in Memo No. 2129 dated 28.02.2014 by which punishment of four annual increment with cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the original petitioner; as also for quashing order as contained in Memo No. 10997 dated 17.11.2014 by which the appellate authority has refused to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 28.02.2014.

8. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated reads as under:

The original writ petitioner, namely, Namita Nalini Baxla @ Namita Nalini Minz, while working as Block Development Officer, Basia, Gumla was proceeded departmentally by issuance of memorandum of charge as contained in Resolution No. 738 dated 08.02.2008 containing therein seven charges pertaining to (i).embezzlement of public money (ii).defalcation of public money (iii). misuse of government vehicle (iv).Violation of rules in maintenance of cash book (v).Leaving the headquarter unauthorizedly (vi).Unauthorized absence and (vii).Violation of order and misuse of post.

In contemplation of departmental proceeding the enquiry officer was appointed. Pursuant thereto, the delinquent-employee appeared before the enquiry officer and submitted show cause reply denying all charges leveled against him.

9. The enquiry officer, taking into consideration the reply submitted by the delinquent officer and the opinion of the presenting officer on the charge, has recorded finding as under:

So far charge no. 1, which pertains to embezzlement of public money to the tune of Rs. 15,72,886.07, is concerned finding has been recorded by the enquiry officer that the same has not been established assigning the reason for coming to such conclusion is that the audit for the financial year 2000-01 and 2001-02, which was conducted by the Office of Accountant General, Bihar has not found embezzlement of the public money as alleged and as such there was no report to that effect in pursuance to provision as contained under Rule 44 of the Bihar Treasury Code (Part-I). The enquiry officer has therefore come to the conclusion that the charge itself is without any basis since nothing adverse was found in the audit conducted by the office of the Accountant General, Bihar.

So far charge No. 2(ka), which pertains to incurring expenditure to the tune of Rs. 75027/- for the purpose of repairing of the vehicle, is concerned, the enquiry officer on consideration of the various documents as also the defence of the delinquent employee has come to the conclusion that irregularity was committed for not getting the quotation before incurring expenditure on the repairing of the vehicle concerned.

Charge No. 3 pertains to the misuse of government vehicle causing loss to the tune of Rs. 46375.15 on account of fuel expenditure but the enquiry officer on consideration on various documents has come to the conclusion that the delinquent was in-charge of fou