IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1644 of 2009 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CAE NO.14047 OF 2009 ==================================================== Rabindra Jha son of Late Gunanand Jha, resident of village Barail P.O.Teghara via Khutauna,P.S.Babubarhi,District-Madhubani - Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The joint Secretary, Government of Bihar, Water Resources Department, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, Water Resources Department, Patna 5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri 6. The Superintending Engineer, Sone Modernization Canal Circle, Dehri 7. The Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Modernization Division, Nasriganj, District- Rohtas. Respondent(s) ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha Mr. Kumar Ravi Shankar Mr. Punam Kumari Mr. Pushpa Rani For the Respondents : Mr. Subhas Prasad Singh, G.A.8 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 20.9.2010. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the appeal is heard and decided today. 2 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5th November, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C.No.14047 of 2009, the writ petitioner has filed the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant, an Assistant Engineer in the Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, has been dismissed from service by resolution dated 8th September 2009. The charge framed on 6th March 2003 was in respect of complicity of the appellant in misappropriation of 736 bags of cement from the godown as the appellant failed to take action against the Junior Engineer Sri Bhola Yadav and the Correspondence Clerk Sri Vijay Singh. In respect of the said charge, an inquiry was conducted against the appellant. After recording the evidence, the Inquiry Officer opined that the appellant was responsible for authorizing Sri Vijay Singh the Correspondence Clerk to receive the cement and for not maintaining the proper accounts and also for over-looking the maintenance of the cement stock. In view of the said finding, after issuing notice to show cause, by notification dated 8th September 2003, the appellant was ordered to be dismissed from service. The order 3 of dismissal refers to the receipt of 3000 bags of cement in place of 2200 bags of cement out of which 800 bags were not accounted for and on spot verification 64 bags of cement were found. Therefore, the appellant was responsible for the loss of 736 bags of cement. The challenge to the order of dismissal before the learned Single Judge has failed. The learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant has not challenged the legality of the departmental proceeding. In absence of such challenge, reappreciation of the evidence was beyond the jurisdiction of the court. The writ petition was thus summarily rejected. Therefore, the present appeal. We have perused the records. As observed hereinabove, the charge framed was in respect of the loss of 736 bags of cement and the complicity of the appellant was inferred for the reason that the appellant failed to take action against the above referred Sri Bhola Yadav and Sri Vijay Singh. We find that the charge framed against the appellant was as vague as vagueness can be. Neither the appellant could have defended such vague charge nor could the act of delinquency have been built on such a vague charge. We find 4 that in the process of the disciplinary proceeding, the charge has been improved upon by the lnquiry Officer and has further been improved upon by the disciplinary authority. No reference in respect of 2200 bags of cement or receipt of 3000 bags of cement, or to 800 bags of cement etc, has been made anywhere on the record either in the charge or in the supporting evidence. In our opinion, the proceeding held against the appellant was bad right from its inception. Neither the Inquiry Officer could have improved upon the charge to hold the appellant guilty nor could the disciplinary authority have added further materials from his own knowledge. As we have held the foundation of the disciplinary proceeding namely the charge was bad nor could the inquiry have been proceeded on such a vague charge. The consequent finding of guilt and the order of punishment are unsustainable. We, therefore, hold that the order of dismissal of the appellant from service is illegal and has to be quashed. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th November 2009 made by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C.No.14047 of 2009 is set aside. C.W.J.C.No.14047 of 2009 is allowed. The impugned 5 notification dated 8th September, 2009 is set aside. Consequently, the appellant will be reinstated in service within three weeks from today. Upon his reinstatement in service, the appellant will be entitled to the back wages from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement in service. The period under suspension will be treated as the period spent on duty. The appellant will also be entitled to the amount of difference in salary for the period spent under suspension. The amount of back wages and the difference in salary payable under this order will be paid to the appellant as early as possible but not later than 31st March, 2011. In the event, the respondents fail to pay the amount of back wages and the difference in salary by 31st March 2011, the appellant will be entitled to interest on such amount at the rate of 10 % per annum commencing from Ist April 2011 till the date of payment. ahk (R. M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)