IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9088 of 2008 GAJENDRA NATH PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.9089 of 2008 SURENDRA NATH VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioners : M/S Sashi Anugrah Narayan(Sr. Adv.)Naresh Dixit, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sheoji Prasad(G.P.-2) For the Board : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, Advocate. ----------- 4. 17.7.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are the Junior Engineers with the Zila Parishad, Saran. They are aggrieved by two separate orders dated 3.6.2008 passed by the Principal Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, whereunder they have been placed under suspension for diversion of funds of the Zila Parishad for execution of the civil works under the orders of their Superior Officers, which tantamounts to violation of the financial norms. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner Gajendra Nath Pandey that for diversion of Rs. 8,39,385/- he was proceeded against after being placed under suspension as would appear from the order passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner dated 26.3.1996, Annexure-3 and thereafter enquiry proceedings were conducted and report submitted which is dated 29.6.1996, Annexure-6 and in consideration of the Enquiry Report punishment order dated 22.7.1996, Annexure-7 was passed by the - 2 - competent authority, namely, the Deputy Development Commissioner. For the same charge of diversion of funds petitioners were again proceeded after receipt of the report dated 2.5.2001 from the Cabinet Vigilance Department whereafter Enquiry Report dated 22.7.2006, Annexure-11 was submitted on the basis of which punishment order dated 7.8.2006, Annexure-12 was passed and for the same charge again the petitioners are being placed under suspension by the impugned order for the reason that the reporting authority, namely, the Cabinet Vigilance Department was not heard in the matter during the enquiry proceeding as also for the reason that the departmental proceeding began after four years of the receipt of the report from the Cabinet Vigilance Department. 3. Learned senior counsel Shri S.A. Narayan appearing in support of this application has contended that this fresh suspension order and enquiry proceeding is violative of the provisions contained in Bihar Zila Parishad Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers Service/Cadre, Rules, 2000 as in terms of Rule 11, Sub-Rule-(iv), the Deputy Development Commissioner is the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioners and he having considered the charges and passed the punishment order, the matter concluded not once but twice by virtue of orders dated 22.7.1996 and 7.8.2006, Annexures- 7 and 12 then there is no occasion for the State Government to again review the matter by resorting to the powers contained in Section 154 of the Panchayati Raj Act as for the same charges petitioners have already been punished not once but twice. - 3 - 4. From perusal of the impugned suspension order it does not appear that the petitioners are being proceeded against for diversion of Rs. 8,39,385/- for the civil works in the light of the report of the Cabinet Vigilance Department dated 2.5.2001 for which Gajendra Nath Pandey was earlier proceeded and Enquiry Reports dated 29.6.1996 and 22.7.2006 were submitted on the basis of which punishment orders dated 22.7.1996 and 7.8.2006, Annexures-6, 7, 11 and 12 were passed, as such, I deem it expedient to direct the petitioners to approach the Principal Secretary of the Panchayti Raj Department and to satisfy him by filing separate representation that for the charge of diversion of fund for execution of civil works, they have already been proceeded against and punished not once but twice and if that be so then the Secretary will not only recall the suspension order but also would ensure that the proceeding itself is closed. 5. Separate representation annexing a certified copy of this order be filed by the petitioners as early as possible, in any case, within a period of one month from today whereafter the Principal Secretary of the Department should consider and dispose of the same within another two months. 6. Both the writ applications are, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)