IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9278 of 1996 AWADHESH KUMAR SINHA SON OF LATE AKALU SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RASALPUR, P.S. MUFASSIL, GAYA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY CUM CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 4 23/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. As of now, the only punishment which subsists or subsisted after due enquiry and finding of guilt, is stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, censure to be recorded in the Character Roll of the petitioner for the year 1987-88 and non payment of salary for the period of suspension which has been indicated as 21.3.1990 to 23.5.1991 and 6.3.1993 to 28.6.1994. The other punishment of non grant of promotion for five years has been undone at the appellate stage. Petitioner has retired years ago and the wrong - 2 - doing for which he came to be proceeded in a departmental enquiry relates to the petitioner’s posting at what is known as Durgawati Project located in the district of Rohtas. It is an on going project for more than three decades now and it has not reached anywhere near completion till date. In the present case the matter relates to the period 1987-88 onwards when a vigilance enquiry or flying squad came to visit the site and pointed out major infirmities in the work which was being carried out or had been carried out at the relevant time. Report of the flying squad is annexure-4 to the writ application. This triggered the departmental proceeding against the petitioner where six charges were drawn up in terms of annexure-6 and the corresponding enquiry report came to be given by the Enquiry Officer in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has many a submissions to make with regard to the legality of punishment and the manner in which it has come to be imposed. The Court does not want to investigate all that aspect or take into consideration those submissions primarily for the reasons that the petitioner is no longer in service, that the nature of punishment which has come - 3 - to be imposed upon him is based on findings and it is not a case of no evidence at all. Taking a hyper technical view of the matter at this stage may not help the petitioner for the reason that if the issue went to the root of the matter or if the punishment came to be imposed without any finding or any evidence, then the Court may have been to consider the issue afresh but in the totality of the charges and the materials which were six in nature, in the opinion of the Court, petitioner has got away lightly in terms of punishment and the Court does not want to re-open the issue since petitioner has retired and is leading a retired life. This writ application is dismissed in that term. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)