IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10466 of 2010 1. TEEPAN PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE MATHURA PRASAD SINGH AT PRESENT RESIDING AT GANESH LAXMI NIWAS, NEW COLONY, CHOUDHARY TOLA, MAHENDRU, P.S.SULTANGANJ, TOWN AND DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION SHAHABAD DIVISION, ARRAH, BHOJPUR 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION SHAHABAD DIVISION, SAHARSA ----------- 2 12.05.2011 petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of a memo dated 01.03.2004, issued under the signature of Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, by which a proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule was initiated and also for quashing of another memo dated 22.04.2010, issued under the signature of Secretary, Department of Road Construction, wherein, it has been held that, during the pendency of the proceeding, petitioner was not entitled for monetary benefits of Junior and Senior Selection Grades and has also prayed for a 2 direction to the respondents not to proceed with the proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the question of limitation in initiation of proceeding in view of proviso (a) (ii) of Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charges relate to the period up to 1995, whereas the petitioner superannuated on 28.02.2003. Hence, as the period of misconduct was prior to four years from the date of superannuation, the proceeding could not be initiated against him. Mr.Verma appearing for the respondents, referring to the counter affidavit, has pointed out that an explanation was called for from the petitioner by letter dated 28.02.2002 itself, when he was in service. He did not respond to it. Hence, a fresh show cause notice was also issued. Then only he filed his explanation on 15.01.2003 and soon thereafter he superannuated. Hence a proceeding was initiated against him on 01.03.2004 under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule to which 3 he did file his reply. He submits that thereafter petitioner moved this Court for payment of his retiral dues and payment in respect of his some pre-retiral entitlements through CWJC No.10662 of 2007. He submits that at that time petitioner was well aware that the proceeding had been initiated and pending against him. Still he did not choose to make a prayer in the writ application for quashing of the proceeding, although the fact with regard to the proceeding was mentioned in the writ application and memo of charge was also annexed. Hence, a presumption can be drawn that the petitioner gave up his claim to challenge the legality of initiation of the proceeding at that stage and raised his grievance before this Court only in respect of payment of his retiral dues and in respect of his pre-retiral entitlements. In the circumstances, he submits that the present writ application with a prayer to quash the initiation of departmental proceeding is hit by principle of estoppel and, therefore, the same cannot be entertained now. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the authorities of the 4 Department had bias against him and some of them had acted in a planned manner to implicate him in criminal proceeding and get him punished. He submits that since he has no faith on the officers of the department who were at that time vindictive towards him he did not participate in the proceeding then. He submits that the petitioner has been requesting for independent inquiry, but the same was not considered by the higher authorities of the Department. He submits that he is ready to face the inquiry if the same is held by any independent agency, may be by the Department of Cabinet Vigilance where he will co-operate and produce all his evidence to establish his innocence. The submission of Mr.Verma in respect of present writ application that it is hit by principle of estoppel is correct. Therefore, this Court declines to enter into the issue raised by the petitioner in this writ application. However, in view of the apprehension raised on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel, this Court directs the respondents to refer the matter to the Cabinet Vigilance Department within 5 one month from today. On receipt of the records in the Department, the Vigilance Commissioner shall entrust the inquiry to a responsible officer of the Department who shall notice the petitioner to appear before him and participate in the inquiry by submitting an exhaustive show cause reply with all the documents for the purposes of consideration in the inquiry in his defence. The Inquiry Officer shall conclude the inquiry and submit his report, within three months from the date of the same being entrusted to him by the Vigilance Commissioner, to the Secretary of the parent Department of the petitioner i.e. Road Construction Department. On receipt of the report, the said Secretary of the Department shall issue second show cause notice to the petitioner, if necessary, with inquiry report and thereafter, on receipt of his representation, if filed within the time limit fixed in the second show cause, shall pass final orders in the matter, positively within a period of two months from the date of receipt of report from the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer while holding 6 the inquiry against the petitioner will be at liberty to find out as to whether any other person/persons were also responsible in matter, and if so, he shall mention the same specifically in his report. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)