IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11873 of 2010 1. PREM PRAKASH SINGH S/O LATE GANGADHAR SINGH R/O GUMATI NO.-2, BHIKHANAPUR, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF (NORTH), PLANNING AND MONITORING-2, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PLANNING AND MONITORING-2, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA-2 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DARBHANGA 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PLANNING AND MONITORING-2, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA ----------- 02 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner questions his order of suspension dated 30.6.2010 issued on the ground that during a preliminary investigation of irregularities in Tender he had submitted a wrong report that there had been no tampering with the financial bid documents and that an F.I.R. should also be lodged against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had submitted a bona fide report that there was no evidence of tampering. This report was accepted by the Chief-Engineer. Merely because the vigilance may have a different view of the matter could not be a sufficient justification for the suspension. On the own showing of the petitioner, the grounds in the suspension order are individual to him. 2 This Court has gone through the vigilance report more particularly paragraphs 2.0.14, 2.0.17, 3.0.2 and .3. They state that the petitioner had been directed to examine records and then submitted that he does not prima facie appear that there had been any tampering with the envelops. Yet the officers who examined the envelops including the Engineer-in-chief stated that there was no truth in the allegation. The vigilance report concludes that it was clear that after changing the rates the envelop have been again seen evident from the shrinkage at the core of the envelop sought to be glossed over by stamping. The petitioner had therefore given a wrong report. There is no occasion for this Court at this stage to re-assess the order of suspension on merits by substituting its opinion over that of the vigilance department in exercise of the powers of judicial review. The application is dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)