IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3854 of 2010 1. ANIL KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE TEJ NARAYAN SINGH R/O VILL BENAUT,P.O.SARAON,P.S.RASULPUR,DISTT-SARAN AT CHAPRA,PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER,SECTION NO.1,NEW CAPITAL ROAD,SUB DIVISION NO.2,ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT ,PATNA,(UNDER SUSPENSION) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY,ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,BISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN,BAILEY ROAD,PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER -IN-CHIEF -CUM-ADDITIONAL SECRETARY-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY,ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT ,GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,BISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN,BAILEY ROAD,PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,SOUTH BIHAR (TRAFFIC) SUB-WING,ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT ,BIHAR,PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,CENTRAL ROAD CIRCLE ,ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT BIHAR,PATNA 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ,NEW CAPITAL ROAD DIVISION ,ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT PATNA,DISTT-PATNA 7. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ,NEW CAPITAL ROAD SUB DIVISION NO.2,ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT PATNA ----------- 3 18.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 23.2.2010 which has been passed in contemplation of a departmental proceeding on the allegation that B.M. work was not done by the petitioner in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for one reason or the other the petitioner is only being harassed. After the first transfer order which were under challenge before this Court was quashed, he has now been put under suspension on non-est ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the counter affidavit and submits that it would be appear from annexure-A that the work done on Boring Road-Bailey Road 2 junction had to be measured. The B.M. work and the D.B.M. work were not in accordance with the requirements. Petitioner refers to a letter of the Engineer in Chief dated 6.1.2010 in which it has been stated that ‘pre level’ measurement had taken place whereas ‘post level’ measurement had not taken place. It has been suggested by the Engineer in Chief that ‘post level’ measurement should take place and after that if there is default in the said measurement, the person concerned should be booked. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the departmental proceeding has been initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has wrongly been put under suspension, as the order of suspension and the departmental proceeding does not take into account that unless ‘post level’ measurement is taken in this case, no offence can be made out against the petitioner as the entire allegations are on the basis of measurement. It is submitted that on measurement if it is found that the work is not in accordance with the requirement or the contract or the guidelines laid down by the State Government, the petitioner would be liable to be suspended and put under departmental proceeding. It is submitted that on the basis of the oral statement the order passed in departmental proceeding would be eventually defective. This Court is not interfering with the order of 3 suspension at this stage, however, the authorities concerned should nevertheless take into account their own documents and observations as it would be waste of Government’s time and the Court’s time as the Court would have to quash the order if the authorities are to put a man under suspension and punish him without taking the precaution of establishing the offence only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)