IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.413 of 2007 ==================================================== CHOUDHARY SUDHIR KUMAR ROY, SON OF SRI CHOUDHARY GANGA NATH RAI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NORTH PATEL NAGAR, P.S. KESARINAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AND POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, FIELD SURVEY DIVISION, ARA UNDER ADVANCE PLANNING, ARA :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY CUM CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICE, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER (TECHNICAL), ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. SPECIAL OFFICER CUM DEPUTY SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA:--RESPONDENTS. ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner: MRS. SONI SHRIVASTAVA & MR. AMIT PRAKASH, ADVOCATES. For the Respondent: MR. CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, A.A.G-6 MR. DEWENDRA NARAYAN SINGH, A.C. TO A.A.G.6. ==================================================== 03. 14.07.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State who has also produced the departmental file in which proceeding was conducted against the petitioner and others. At the relevant time petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer in the Road Division, Sabour. He has filed this writ petition assailing the notification of the State Government bearing no. 2878 dated 17.3.2006, Annexure-5, whereunder after considering his show- cause in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 55 A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed on him with 2 further direction to post him in non-works for a period of three years. It appears, petitioner was earlier served with Letter No. 8670 dated 14.11.2002, Annexure-1 enclosing charge-sheet alleging 11 irregularities in connection with the repair of Jagdishpur Sanhaula Road. In response to the said charge-sheet petitioner submitted his reply dated 05.12.2002 and having considered the same 8 of the 11 charges were dropped and petitioner was served with another charge-sheet under Letter No. 9664 dated 11.11.2003, Annexure-2. Perusal of Annexure-2 would indicate that for repair of Jagdishpur-Sanhaula Road estimate was split into two contrary to the instructions of the Government to prepare one estimate for the entire road. Second charge levelled against the petitioner in the said charge-sheet is that he made expenditure in connection with the repair of the said road even beyond the amount indicated in the agreement contrary to the Government instruction not to spend any amount exceeding the amount indicated in the agreement. The 3rd charge levelled against him is that he did not record the details of the Agency who executed the work, as is required under Rule 231 of the Bihar Financial Rules. From the charge-sheet itself it appears that in support of the charge the authorities desired to rely on the report of the Flying Squad and the instructions contained in the letter(s) of the Engineer-in-Chief bearing no. 387 dated 09.06.2000 as also of the Technical Examination Cell 3 bearing no. 948 dated 16.7.1987 and Rule 231 of the Bihar Financial Rule. 2. Having received the aforesaid memo of charge dated 11.11.2003 petitioner submitted his reply dated 09.12.2003, Annexure-3 in which he admitted to have split the estimate for the repair of the Jagdishpur- Sanhaula Road into two as allotment was received in two instalments. He also accepted the fact that the amount beyond the estimate was spent while executing the repair work of the road-in-question but submitted that he had not made any specific recommendation for such payment although he accepted the fact that he signed the Measurement-Book. After consideration of the aforesaid reply petitioner was served with another notice bearing Letter No. 7080 dated 23.09.2005, Annexure-4 asking him to show-cause as to why he be not punished for splitting the estimate as also for spending amount beyond the amount indicated in the agreement on the basis of the measurement noted by him with signature in the Measurement-Book. 3. In response to the aforesaid notice dated 23.09.2005 petitioner filed letter dated 29.10.2005 reiterating the same submission which he had made in his earlier reply dated 09.12.2003. The reply of the petitioner dated 29.10.2005 was received in the department on 31.10.2005 and was considered at different levels in the department and with the approval 4 of the departmental Minister impugned notification dated 17.03.2006, Annexure-5 was issued imposing the aforesaid punishment on the petitioner, as is evident from the departmental file duly produced before me in compliance of my order dated 12.07.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the said notification on the ground that the same does not indicate any consideration of the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner. In this connection she clarified that close perusal of the said notification would indicate only a bare reference to the different show-cause filed by the petitioner. The contents of the show-cause and the consideration thereof is not reflected in the notification. 5. Having appreciated the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel, this Court under order dated 12.07.2011 directed the State counsel, A.A.G.-6 to produce the departmental file for my perusal. From the file it is quite evident that the different show-cause filed by the petitioner has been duly considered in the department at different levels and the officers considering the reply of the petitioner have given comprehensive note in the file dealing with the submission raised by the petitioner in the show-cause reply. In consideration of the notes given by the officers and the punishment proposed by them the Hon’ble Minister of the department has granted his approval on 30.01.2006. In the light of the final approval granted by 5 the Hon’ble Minister the impugned punishment notification has been issued indicating in brief the charge levelled against the petitioner together with the date of his reply, notice proposing punishment and other details including punishment in the name of the Governor of Bihar. 6. Having gone through the charge-sheet dated 11.11.2003 and the show-cause reply of the petitioner dated 09.12.2003 as also the notes given by the officers and approval granted by the State Government, I am satisfied that the notification imposing punishment on the petitioner has been imposed after due consideration of the matter by the State Government. I do not find any illegality in the punishment notification. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)