IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2762 of 2010 1. SHANKAR RAM S/O LATE BHIKHAR RAM R/O VILL- MATH BANWARI, P.S- PIPRAKOTHI, DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE ENGINEER IN-CHARGE (NORTH), WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupak Kumar, Adv. For the State : Rajesh Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.-6. ----------- 2/ 26/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceeding which he questioned in C.W.J.C. No.8631/09. In the meantime, pursuant to his superannuation, the proceedings had been converted into one under Section- 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. This Court declined to interfere with the departmental proceedings, but granted liberty on 25.7.2009 to approach this Court again if the proceedings were not concluded within four months, provided that the delay was not attributable to the petitioner. The counter affidavit acknowledges that the petitioner submitted his written defence before the Enquiry Officer on 21.8.2009 and also appeared on - 2 - 2.2.2010 i.e. less than a month after the order of this Court. Paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit ascribes the delay in completion of the proceedings as attributable to the respondents alone making no statement of any contributory delay by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that some more time may be given to conclude the departmental proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to the specific pleading in paragraph-12 of the writ application that the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer who were likewise issued a show cause notice like the petitioner, the charges against them have been dropped at the stage of their reply to the show cause notice itself and no departmental proceeding was initiated against them. This fact is not denied in paragraph-18 of the counter affidavit. The charges against the petitioner were five in number. Charge No.1 related to disobedience of the direction for sending a legal notice and publication against the contractor for not completing the work. Charge No.2 stated that the mud excavated was not turfed properly leading to return of the same at the bottom during monsoon. Charge No.3 alleged casualness - 3 - in not submitting a proposal for appropriate action against those responsible for erosion on the left bank. Charge No.4 was with regard to non-completion of the bridge construction and charge No.5 related to not informing in time that the workers had run away for fear of Nepali Maoists. This Court is satisfied that the nature of the charges except charge No.1, would not be a matter for appropriate action by the petitioner alone, but necessarily as a part of a team. It has already been noticed above that the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer have not been proceeded with departmentally. Orders of a Court have a sanctity and cannot be treated with casualness to render it nugatory or discretionary in absoluteness. The submission on behalf of the State for extension of time to complete the proceedings does not appeal to this Court in view of the nature of the observations made in C.W.J.C. No.8631/09. On a reading of the order this Court is satisfied that while the Court did not consider it prudent to quash the departmental proceedings at that stage, it did consider it proper to fix a time limit for completion of the proceedings with simultaneous liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court for quashing of the charges if there was unreasonable delay in the departmental proceedings - 4 - not attributable to the petitioner. This Court cannot render the aforesaid directions and observations made by a coordinate Bench a dead letter at a later stage without any cogent and persuasive materials for the same. The respondents have not brought any materials on record in the counter affidavit to persuade this Court to hold otherwise. The petitioner is stated to have retired. In the considered opinion of the Court on the facts of the case, the petitioner ought to be left in the harmony and peace in the days of his superannuation. The entire departmental proceedings against the petitioner including the memo. of charges stand quashed for reasons of the unexplained and unreasonable delay attributable to the respondents alone. This Court directs the respondents to hold an enquiry and initiate departmental proceedings against those responsible for delay in completion of the proceedings despite an order of this Court, and conclude the same expeditiously in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)