PATNA, India, June 18 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on June 16:
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the Office Order, as contained in Memo No. 3020 dated 09.07.2019, issued by the Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby the petitioner was demoted to the minimum pay scale of Clerk and further a direction has been issued to recover 16% interest over the amount of registration/renewal fee of the building construction labourers deposited in his personal accounts. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the appellate order, as contained in Memo No. 3997 dated 23.09.2019, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Additional Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and the order of punishment aforenoted came to be affirmed.
3. The facts of the case is in narrow compass. While the petitioner was working as Clerk in the office of the Labour Superintendent, Nalanda at Biharsharif in the year 2016, he was transferred to the office of the Labour Superintendent, Lakhisarai; where he joined on 27.10.2016. During the said period, while the petitioner was posted in the office of the Labour Superintendent, Nalanda at Biharsharif, some amount under Registration/Renewal Fee for building construction labourers have been received in the office of Labour Superintendent, but it could not be deposited in the Government Treasury or the official account of the department and allegedly it has been deposited in the account of the petitioner and his wife. The aforesaid amount has later on deposited in the Government treasury on 14.11.2017 and 06.12.2017. The aforesaid fact led to initiation of a departmental proceeding after furnishing memo of charge over the petitioner. In response to the memo of charge, the petitioner submitted his categorical reply. After enquiry, charges stood proved against the petitioner and based upon that, the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment aforenoted by the impugned order after issuance of second show cause notice to the petitioner.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Salahuddin Khan, while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the period during which the amount allegedly could not be deposited, such period was affected with demonetization and only in order to save the subjected Government amount, the petitioner bonafidely deposited the same in his own account and the account of his wife. There is specific contention that when the amount in question was received during the period aforenoted, the then Labour Superintendent, namely, Ganesh Prasad was not interested in signing on the rokar bahi and the bank slip for depositing the said money in the Government Treasury and thus it was kept in the office, the petitioner left with no option deposited the same in his account and the account of his wife. The moment new Labour Superintendent namely, Niraj Nayan joined on 08.07.2016, the aforesaid money was deposited in the Government treasury on 14.11.2017 and 06.12.2017. Had it been the intention of the petitioner to siphon the amount aforenoted, he would not have been deposited the amount, rather deposited in the account of some unknown person but depositing the amount in his own account and the account of his wife clearly shows his innocence.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTQ5MCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-UcI9UOCTvNs=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
