JUDGMENT
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.
1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the memo of charge dated 22-4-2000 (Annexure-10) whereby the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated against him. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 19-4-2001 (Annexure-11) whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,09,933.10 paise and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.
2. Facts giving rise to the present application are that by order dated 13-12-1997 (Annexure-7) the petitioner was informed that he has been held guilty of shortage of certain fertilizers and pesticides valued at Rs. 9,156.60 and accordingly, he was directed to deposit the amount in instalments. It was made clear that in case of failure steps for his dismissal shall be taken. Petitioner did not challenge the said order. Thereafter, again by order dated 20-6-1998 (Annexure-8), petitioner was held responsible for shortage of fertilizers and pesticides valued at Rs. 1,62,807.85 and he was asked to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of receipt of the said order before the Senior Regional Officer of the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union, hereinafter referred to as the Biscomaun’. Petitioner also did not challenge the said order.
3. It seems that for non-compliance of the aforesaid direction, petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 1-9-1998 and by the said order, a sum of Rs. 1,71,934.45 was also directed to be recovered. Further a corrigendum dated 2-11-1998 was issued directing that a further sum of Rs. 1,27,033.04 shall also be recovered from the petitioner.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders petitioner preferred C.W. J.C. No. 11589 of 1998 (Ram Chandra Jha v. The Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. and Ors.) before this Court. By order dated 27-1-2000, this Court quashed the order of dismissal as also the corrigendum referred to above. However, respondents were given liberty to proceed against the petitioner and while doing so, it was clearly observed that the charge levelled against the petitioner has not been quashed. After the aforesaid order, petitioner was reinstated in service and further a memo of charge dated 22-4-2000 was served on him containing three charges. The first and second charges related to disobedience of the order dated 13-12-1997 and 20-6-1998 whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 9126.60 and Rs. 1,62,807.85 respectively. The third charge related to shortage of pesticides valued at Rs. 1,27,033.04. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty and the petitioner was asked to file reply. On consideration of the report of the enquiry officer and the reply given by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority by the impugned order dated 19-4-2001 (Annexure-11), inflicted the penalty of recovery of Rs. 2,09,933.10 and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.
5. Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner ought not to have been visited with the penalty for charge Nos. 1 and 2 as the petitioner was not given any opportunity to demonstrate that in fact he was not liable to pay the amount indicated in those charges.
6. Mr. Choudhary, however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the allegation against the petitioner is of disobedience of those order and the petitioner having not challenged the same, lateron, he cannot be permitted to do so after a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him for the disobedience of those orders.
7. Having appreciated the rival submission, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Thakur. As stated earlier, by order dated 13-12-1997, petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 9126.60 in instalments. Petitioner did not challenge the same and at the same time, did not obey the said order. Similarly, petitioner did not challenge the order dated 20-6-1998 of recovery. Thus, the allegation against the petitioner in the present case is of disobedience of those orders and the question of recovery was decided earlier, which was never questioned by the petitioner.
8. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner to show that he is not liable to make any payment.
9. Only submission made by Mr. Thakur having no substance, I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.