Arun Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4374 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 W.P.(S) No. 289 of 2020
                 Arun Kumar                           ...  ...  Petitioner
                                          Versus
                 State of Jharkhand and Ors.          ...   ...     Respondents
                                          ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

                 For the Petitioner       : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate
                 For the Respondents      : Mr. Rohit, Advocate
                                          ---
05/02.11.2022          Learned counsels for the parties are present.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings arise out of Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules although there has been no pecuniary loss. The amount of Rs.23,10,774/- which was paid in excess to the private person has been deposited by the said person. He submits that the petitioner had no role to play in the matter of disbursement of amount to private person. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had disbursed the amount from one government account to another government account and there has been further disbursement to various persons in which the petitioner has no role. Learned counsel has also submitted that there has been violation of principle of natural justice as certain documents were not provided to the petitioner at the stage of enquiry.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that required procedure has been followed and the fact remains that excess amount was disbursed by the petitioner which was ultimately passed on to private party and the very fact that the private party has refunded the amount of Rs.23,10,774/- itself indicates that excess amount was disbursed. He submits that the role of the petitioner need not be considered in isolation and the petitioner was totally negligent in disbursing the amount as is apparent from the charges levelled and to the extent it stood proved against the petitioner. He submits that out of three charges, charge no.1 and charge no.3 were proved and charge no.2 was not proved.

4. The learned counsels for the parties are directed to file short synopsis of argument, list of dates and the judgments on which they seek to rely upon by 04.11.2022.

5. Post this case on 07.11.2022 under the same heading.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav