IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLCIATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.13296 of 2002 SANGI PRASAD YADAV S/O LATE DEO NANDAN PRASAD YADAV R/O VILLAGE-MADHAWAN, PS- PALIGANJ, DISTT-PATNA- ---------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECY. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR ,PATNA 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. UNDER SECY. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESORUCES (IRRIGATION) GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) BIHAR, PATNA 6. CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT-CUM-INQUIRY OFFICER, DARBHANGA, DISTT- DARBHANGA 7. CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, RANCHI, DISTT-RANCHI (STATE OF JHARKHAND) 8. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KONAR CANAL DIVISION, BAGODAR, DISTT- GIRIDIH (STATE OF JHARKHAND)------RESPONDENTS ---------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Md. Imtayaz Ahmad, Advocate For the Respondents:Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C. 21 Mr. A. Bhardwaj, AC to SC-21. ------------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ***** A.K.Tripathi,J. Dismissal of the petitioner from service in terms of annexure-1 dated 23rd December, 1997 as well as rejection of appeal of the petitioner by the appellate authority which is annexure-2 dated 6.2.2002 are under challenge in the present writ application filed by the petitioner. He wants quashing of the two orders and direction for consequential benefit thereto. Entry of the petitioner in service of Irrigation Department was on the post of a clerk which he joined on 3.10.1961. After his joining he was posted at what is known as Chatra Canal Project in Nepal. Later in December, 1975 he was moved to Birpur - 2 - Mechanical Circle under Koshi Project. On 16.7.1992 petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Head clerk and posted in Western Koshi Canal situated in Raj Biraj, Nepal. According to assertion of the petitioner, he had certain tiff with one Mahavir Prasad who came to be transferred to the place of posting of petitioner, on the post of Sub-Engineering Officer. He submitted certain T. A. bills on which several objections were raised by Executive Engineer. Some more T.A. bills also became a subject matter of contention. Non-passing of the bills of Mahavir Prasad was taken up by Mahavir Prasad with the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department. He made an allegation that he was being unnecessarily harassed by the petitioner and he was not willing to pass the bills unless he obliged the petitioner. This led to suspension of petitioner on 16th July, 1990 as would be evident from annexure-5 to the writ application. His headquarter was fixed under the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Darbhanga. A detailed chargesheet was drawn up against the petitioner which primarily relates to illegal demand made by him and kind of harassment he was meeting out the people including Mahavir Prasad in passing of T. A. bills. The chargesheet is on record as annexure-7/1. Reading of writ application would show that for one reason or the other the enquiry could not be completed which included retirement of the enquiry officer. A new enquiry officer was appointed namely, Prithwi Chandra Prasad vide order dated - 3 - 28.4.1993 (annexure-8). Since the petitioner remained under suspension for a long period of time he decided to file a writ application, CWJC No. 3468 of 1993. Vide order dated 10.5.1993 the writ was disposed of with a direction that the departmental proceeding should be concluded at the earliest and subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner, if not already paid. Annexure-9 is the order of the High Court passed in the matter. As per the petitioner he filed reply to the charges on 24.5.1993. But neither the proceeding was concluded within the time frame fixed by the High Court nor was his order of suspension revoked and subsistence allowance paid. This led to filing of contempt application which was registered as MJC No. 1582 of 1993. Government revoked the suspension of the petitioner with effect from 9.9.1993 and posted him under the jurisdiction of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Ranchi vide order dated 6.11.1993. Petitioner reported and joined at Ranchi on 3.12.1993. His assertion is that his posting at Ranchi created problems as the proceeding was continuing at Darbhanga. He made a request for transfer of departmental proceeding to Ranchi but the respondents did not consider his request favourably. He complained about non-payment of his salary regularly or his earlier subsistence allowance. Matter dragged on with regard to departmental proceeding. He raised several objections including non-supply of necessary documents etc. Petitioner did appear before the enquiry officer on some dates if he could. It seems that departmental enquiry had to be carried out behind - 4 - his back due to evasiveness of the petitioner and the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 27.12.1993 holding the petitioner guilty of some of the charges. This led to issuance of a second show cause which is annexure-17 to the writ application. Petitioner raised objection with regard to non-supply of relevant papers to enable him to file his appropriate response but he was allowed only to inspect the records. The order of dismissal contained in annexure-1 came to be passed and his appeal against the same too was rejected as per annexure-2. This is the background under which the writ in question was filed by the petitioner and came to be finally heard. Both, the State of Bihar as well as the State of Jharkhand have filed their counter affidavits. To that extent the pleadings are complete and the arguments were made extenso on behalf of the parties. One of the first submissions on behalf of the petitioner is that the departmental proceeding was conducted behind his back and it was an ex-parte proceeding which is good enough ground for interference with the impugned orders. Whether non-grant of subsistence allowance or T. A. for his appearance for participation in the departmental proceeding at Darbhanga despite his transfer to Ranchi has also caused prejudice to him? Whether non-supply of relevant documents has also created serious prejudice to petitioner? Whether the respondents ought to have held the departmental proceeding at Ranchi where he was finally posted instead of - 5 - Darbhanga, since a request in this regard was made by him? There are other submissions as well as to how the enquiry officer had given findings contrary to facts and as to how the order passed by the appellate authority was a mechanical order without considering the question or issues raised by petitioner in his memo of appeal etc. etc. As per the earlier direction of the Court dated 8.7.2009 the original records of the departmental proceeding was made available at the time of final hearing. The stand of the State of Bihar is that most of the issues which have been raised by petitioner in the writ application are after thought and submissions not based on actual state of affairs. The petitioner, in fact, effectively sabotaged the proceeding as long as he could and ensured that the proceeding dragged on from year to year as long he could help. There is sufficiency of evidence to show that he tried to put spoke in the wheel of the proceeding by applying all the tricks which he could think of. There used to be selective participation in the proceeding and then he used to disappear or used to tactfully withdraw to ensure that the proceeding would not gain momentum. He moved the High Court earlier making an allegation that the respondents are not interested in completing the proceeding initiated against him and when a time frame was fixed by the High Court he ensured that the time frame could not be adhered to, not attributable to the State. These facts and assertions emerge from the counter affidavit as well as submission made at the bar, on the basis of the original records of the departmental proceeding conducted against the petitioner. - 6 - So far as the allegation that petitioner was not paid his subsistence allowance it is also a bundle of lies and falsehood as would be evident from the detailed narration made in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit. A reading of the counter affidavit which was placed before the Court would show that most of the allegations made by the petitioner are imaginary and not established by facts or evidence. There is no evidence on record to show that any demand for documents was made by the petitioner when the enquiry was going on. A misleading kind of statement has been made in the writ application that the petitioner had made demand but he has not retained a copy of the same and therefore he could not annex the same with his writ application. But the original record of the departmental proceeding does not reflect any such demand. A detailed perusal of the original record coupled with assertion made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents does lead this Court to a conclusion that most of the objections raised by the petitioner in the writ application with regard to so called infirmity or illegality in the proceeding are just for the sake of argument raised without supporting material in this regard. The Court has no hesitation in recording that the pleadings of the petitioner are not supported by due evidence and that the original record of the departmental proceeding do not corroborate the allegation made in the writ application. The writ application is based more on clever piece of drafting rather than the actual state of affairs, as to what had transpired in the proceeding. - 7 - The allegations are there, the findings are there, and none of these paint the petitioner in glorious colours. It seems that petitioner was a law by himself in the establishment where he was posted and it seems that he was willing to go to any extent to ensure that his illegal demand or gratification was met by other employees of the office. In fact, there are materials to show that he was a desperate and incorrigible soul. Based on totality of the findings and the materials the respondent authority on due deliberation decided to impose punishment of dismissal. When corruption and such deviant conducts are eating into the vitals of the country, then with due respect to learned counsel for the petitioner this Court has certain reservation in extending any kind of relief or giving benefit to the petitioner. In fact, taking a lenient view in the matter would be doing serious disservice to the respondents State as it would send a wrong signal to all such similarly inclined persons to do what they want and get away lightly on one pretext or other. The challenge made to the order passed in appeal also does not seem to be correct because the appellate authority has considered the appeal of the petitioner in a quite detail. It is a complete narration of the events, the manner in which the proceeding was conducted, the conduct of the petitioner, the findings of the enquiry officer and the decision of the disciplinary authority in the light of objections which came to be made before him by the petitioner. This Court fails to find out any loopholes in the rational or - 8 - the reasoning given by the appellate authority. Mere allegation that there was non-application of mind will not do. To sum, in totality of the materials or the evidence which has been placed before this Court, duly supported by the original record of the departmental proceeding, coupled with the assertions made in the various affidavits no case for interference with the two orders are made out specially when the objections raised in the writ application to the two orders are more made than made out. This writ application has no merit and requires no consideration because there are overwhelming materials against the petitioner which requires imposition of the punishment in question which was done after an enquiry held in this regard. Petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong as it is not a case of ex-parte enquiry which was initially sought to be made out by learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application is dismissed but without any cost. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 7th February 2011 N.A.F.R/RPS/ Sr. Secy. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)