High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Ram Prasad Jha ‘Raman’ vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 30 September, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Ram Prasad Jha ‘Raman’ vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 30 September, 2011
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4381 of 2007
                   RAM PRASAD JHA 'RAMAN', SON OF LATE KAPILESHWAR JHA,
                   RESIDENT    OF     VILLAGE          AND         P.O.  GONOUN, P.S.
                   GHANSHYAMPUR, DISTRICT DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT
                   WORKING AS AN ASSISTANT, IN THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
                   GENERAL SECTION, COLLECTRIATE, DARBHANGA.
                                              Versus
                   1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
                      BIHAR, PATNA.
                   2. THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIOINER, RELIEF AND
                      REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA.
                   3. THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT OFFICER, DARBHANGA.
                   4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BIROUL, SUB-DIVISION,
                      DARBHANGA.
                   5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KIRATPUR BLOCK,
                      DARBHANGA.
                   6. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, DARBHANGA CUM
                      DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY OFFICER, DARBHANGA.
                   7. THE DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OFFICER, DARBHANGA.
                                      ----------------------------------

02. 30.09.2011 None appears for the petitioner. Heard

counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as

Nazir of Kiratpur block in Biroul Sub-division of

Darbhanga district. He is found to have

misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,26,068-67/- under audit

report No.97/2004-05. He has filed this writ petition

for quashing Certificate Case No.15 of 2002-03,

Annexure-10 as also for quashing Memo No.636 dated

31.03.2003, Annexure-7 whereunder proceeding has

been initiated against the petitioner for recovery of a

sum of Rs.40,760/-. Further prayer has been made in

the writ petition to quash audit report No.97/2004-05

dated 13.5.2005 submitted in connection with Kiratpur
2

block for the years 1997-98 till 2002-03 in which

petitioner has been found to have misappropriated a

sum of Rs.2,26,068-67/- and direction has been made

under letter nos. 5(MU) dated 31.08.2005 Annexure-

14, 219 dated 26.04.2006 Annexure-17 and Memo

No.1785 dated 15.09.2006, Annexure-19 for recovery

of the aforesaid amount which the petitioner deposited

under receipt no.514405 dated 5.9.2006.

3. A counter affidavit on behalf of

respondent nos.3 to 7 has been filed in the matter duly

affirmed by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar Sub-

Division, Darbhanga cum Incharge Deputy Collector,

District Legal Cell, Darbhanga. From the said counter

affidavit it, however, does not appear that any finding

either in a departmental or judicial proceeding has been

recorded against the petitioner that he has

misappropriated the amount of Rs.40,760/-, 2,26,068-

67/-, as such, until any finding is recorded that

petitioner has misappropriated the aforesaid amount,

such amount could not be recovered from him.

Petitioner in compliance of the directions of the

superior authorities to deposit part of the said amount

has deposited the said amount under Nazir Receipt
3

No.514405 dated 5.9.2006.

4. As the deposit has already been made by

the petitioner such deposit shall remain with the

authorities and if petitioner is exonerated of the charge

of defalcation of the aforesaid amount the amount shall

be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 18 % per

annum. So far validity of the certificate case No.15 of

2002-03, Annexure-10 is concerned, it is observed that

petitioner may file objection in the said certificate

proceeding that the same should not proceed until a

finding is recorded against him either in departmental

or judicial proceeding that he has misappropriated a

sum of Rs.40,760/-, the said amount cannot be

recovered from him. It may be observed here that audit

report only contain statement of facts but the facts

stated therein are required to be proved either in a

departmental or judicial proceeding initiated against

the person against whom facts have been stated in the

report with reference to materials. In the instant case,

ledger etc.

5. Application stands disposed of.

Rajesh/                         ( V. N. Sinha, J.)