IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4656 of 2008 NAND PRASAD CHAUHAN, SON OF BALKRISHNA CHAUHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+P.O. AMARPUR, PS. DARAUSI, DISTT. SIWAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY PANCHAYTI RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, PANCHAYTI RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETRY, GOVERNEMNT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN. 5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JILA PARISHAD, DISTT SIWAN. 6. DHANANJAY TIWARY, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ZILA PARISHAD, SIWAN For the petitioner : M/s. Mahendra Pd. Gupta, Brajesh Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mrs. Prabha Singh, AC to AAG-7. For the Zila Parishad : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate. For respondent no.6 : M/s. Sashi Auugrah Narayan, Sr. Adv., Kunal Tiwary, Advocate. ----------- 05. 03.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State, Zila Parishad, Siwan(hereinafter referred to as the Zila Parishad) and Sri Dhananjay Mani Tiwary, Assistant Engineer Incharge, Zila Parishad who has been impleaded as respondent no.6 in the petition, on whose behalf Vakalatnama has already been filed in the registry through Sri Kunal Tiwary, Advocate. 2. Petitioner is the Chairman of the Zila Parishad. He has filed this writ petition challenging the order bearing Memo No.170 dated 12.11.2007 Annexure-3, whereunder the Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad has revoked the suspension of respondent no.6. Earlier respondent no.6 was placed under suspension under order bearing Memo No.141 dated 1.10.2007, Annexure-2 in the light of the report submitted by the - 2 - Chairman of the Zila Parishad as four of the projects which were under supervision of respondent no.6 was not completed. Having received order dated 1.10.2007, Annexure-2 respondent no.6 filed his show cause reply disputing the allegations made by the Chairman and submitted that the projects entrusted to him have been completed but on account of mistake of the office and error made by the computer erroneously it is being shown that four projects have not yet been completed. In fact those projects stood completed earlier. 3. Having considered the show cause reply of respondent no.6 the Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2007, Annexure-3 revoking the suspension of respondent no.6. Aforesaid order is being challenged by the petitioner on the ground that until the date of filing of the writ petition the project entrusted to respondent no.6, which is said to have been completed earlier, were never completed and the revocation of suspension is contrary to the provisions contained in Section-69(1)(b) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2007 as such revocation was made without any consultation with the petitioner on whose report the earlier suspension order was passed. 4. Counsel for the Zila Parishad and respondent no.6 with reference to the provisions contained in the Bihar Zila Parishad Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer Service Condition Rules, 2000 as notified under notification dated 12.12.2000, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit submitted that the administrative control over the officers and staff of the Zila Parishad vest in the Deputy Development - 3 - Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer who is incharge of the Zila Parishad and consultation with the Chairman is not required to be made while taking administrative action against the officers and staff of the Zila Parishad. In this connection, learned counsel has relied on Rule-11(iv) and (v) of the Rules. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the administrative control of the officers and staff of the Zila Parishad vests in the Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer who is the executive head of the Zila Parishad but while exercising disciplinary control he is required to have verified the allegations made to him against the officer, may be by the Chairman or any other person or agency. Respondent no.6 was placed under suspension for failure to have executed the schemes within the time fixed for execution of such scheme. The Chairman asserts that the schemes were not completed till the date of filing of the writ petition, the impugned order should not to have been passed which reflects sorry state of affairs prevailing in the Zila Parishad. Aforesaid contentions have been noted in this order, as such submissions were made by the counsel for the petitioner which is being refuted by the counsel for respondent no.6, who states that the stage of the scheme has been correctly noted in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, wherefrom it would appear that out of 10 schemes entrusted to the petitioner, 8 were fully completed and two have been partially completed and in appreciation of such fact suspension of respondent no.6 was revoked. - 4 - 6. Having appreciated the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that there is divergence of opinion about the stage of completion of the scheme entrusted to respondent no.6 for execution and the time within which the schemes were completed. This Court does not have the means to ascertain the same. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Secretary, Panchayti Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna, respondent no.2 to first peruse the three orders dated 22.9.2007, 1.10.2007 and 12.11.2007, Annexures-1, 2, 3 and thereafter seek report from the Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer about the factual statement made in the three impugned orders. In case, respondent no.2 is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2007, Annexure-3 he should issue notice to respondent no.6 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It shall also be open for respondent no.2 to seek assistance of the petitioner and the Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer in the matter. Necessary order in this regard be passed by respondent no.2, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before respondent no.2. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)