Mohit Kumar Shah JUDGMENT
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.09.2008 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Purnea whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been held guilty of charges leveled against him and he has been inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the consequential order dated 16.09.2008, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been ordered to be compulsory retired from the service with immediate effect on invoking the suspension of the petitioner herein.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner herein vide memo no. 443-45 dated 19.03.1996 by an order passed by the District Judge, Purnea against the petitioner herein who was working as typist in the Civil Court, Purnea. In the charge sheet, allegation was leveled against the petitioner regarding him having committed forgery and practiced fraud on the Court by manipulating forgery and fake bail order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with respect to accused persons namely Chandeshwari Mandal, Chedi Mandal, Anandi Mandal and Prabhu Mandal in Sessions trial no. 166 of 1985 and getting them unlawfully released on 19.06.1992 on the basis of said forged and fake bail order. The further allegation against the petitioner is that he had taken a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the accused Chandeshwari Mandal to facilitate his release.
3. The Inquiry Officer had conducted the Inquiry and had submitted the Inquiry report dated 14.08.2006, holding the petitioner guilty for the allegation of committing forgery and practicing fraud on the court by manipulating a forged and fake bail order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and getting Chandeshwari Mandal, Chedi Mandal, Anandi Mandal and Prabhu Mandal unlawfully released from the judicial custody on 19.06.1992 on the basis of forged and fake bail order and having taken a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the said purpose from the convicted accused Chandeshwari Mandal. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was told to appear for hearing before the disciplinary authority on the point of infliction of punishment on 08.05.2007. The petitioner had then appeared before the disciplinary authority on 08.05.2007 praying therein to supply a copy of the inquiry report, which was given to the petitioner on 09.05.2007. A hearing was thereafter held and the disciplinary authority had passed the final order inflicting punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner vide his order dated 16.09.2008.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a criminal case had also been registered against the petitioner and he was taken under custody on 19.03.1996 and was released only after completion of trial on 31.07.2000 i.e. after he was acquitted in the Trial no. 1122 of 2000, hence the petitioner had already been adequately punished and he is required to be compensated by the State for being caught in jail for about four and half years without any fault on his part, thus a disciplinary proceeding is also fit to be set aside. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be inflicted with multiple punishments, inasmuch as he has been firstly punished being put behind bars for about four and half years without any fault of his, secondly, he has suffered the punishment of suspension and has been kept out of service and thirdly, since he has retired, he cannot be reinstated back in service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case lodged against the petitioner on same and similar allegation by a judgment dated 31.07.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in trial no. 1122 of 2000, the petitioner should be exonerated of the charges leveled in the departmental pr........