IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4622 of 2009 Dwarika Prasad Singh, Son of Late Jagdeep Narain, Resident of Village and Post- Sikathi, P.S. Dhansoin, Distt- Buxar (Bihar) working in Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) as Chief Engineer. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Main (Old) Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Secretary, PHED, Govt. of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan Campus, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary, PHED, Govt. of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan Campus, Bailey Road, Patna. ... Respondents. ----------- 02- 16.04.2009 Heard Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Mr. Deo Narain Yadav, Additional Advocate General No.6. This writ petition is directed against the resolution bearing Memo No.615, dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure-1), passed by the State Government whereby the punishment of “fuUnu“ has been awarded to the petitioner and the same has been directed to be entered in the confidential character roll of 2007-08 of the petitioner. 2. It appears that the petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, posted as Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineer Department, Muzaffarpur. He was entrusted the duty of conducing a departmental proceeding against one Devendra Prasad Singh, then functioning as Executive Engineer, Nawada. The petitioner 2 conducted the enquiry proceeding and submitted his report exonerating the delinquent officer. This led to issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging that his role in conducting the departmental proceeding was doubtful. The respondent authorities had issued show-cause notice bearing letter no.483, dated 1.10.2007. The petitioner had shown cause by his letter no.1192, dated 22.10.2007. On a consideration of the materials on record including the cause shown by the petitioner, the State Government came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not shown the expected seriousness and carefulness in conducting the departmental proceeding, and had conducted the same light-heartedly. The petitioner did not discharge his duties appropriately and submitted misleading report. Hence the action. 3. It appears to me on a perusal of the impugned order that the punishment inflicted by the impugned order cannot for the reasons assigned therein be faulted. In fact, we are left with the feeling that the petitioner has been let off very lightly. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3