IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.15627 of 2010 1. Chhathu Prasad S/O Late Sita Ram Presently Residing In The House Of Sri Bagish Mishra (Retired I.A.S.) In Frong Of New Telephone Exchange, P.O.& P.S.Telaiya, Distt-Kodarma(Jharkhand), The Retired Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department , Government Of Bihar, Patna 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 Government Of Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Road Construction Department Government Of Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5. The Chief Engineer (Traffic)-Cum-Conducting Officer, North Bihar Wing Camp Office, Central Design Organization (C.D.O.) Building , Bailey Road, Patna 6. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department Government Of Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna ---------------------------------- 3. 01.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the charge memo dated 18.1.2008 issued on the ground that he acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and failed to discharge his duties with devotion and integrity contravening Rule 3 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976. The enquiry proceeded. The petitioner asked for the following specified documents:- 1.) S/A Register of M/Q to Bagodar-Hazaribagh Road; 2.) S/A Register of District Planning Scheme, and 3.) Measurement Book No. 7671. The documents being voluminous he was permitted access for inspection in the office. He lodged his protest that all of them were not made available for perusal. In his reply to the memo of charge also he took this objection. 2 An enquiry report followed on 18.3.2008 of guilt holding that during his tenure the accounts were not maintained properly and he did not deposit the records in due time as also did not render necessary assistance during the investigation. He had not furnished any reasonable explanation with regard to the issuance of 2.3106 Metric Tons of Bulk Bitumen excess/false. In his reply to the second show cause notice he again took an objection that necessary documents were not made available to him even during inspection. The petitioner questioned the order of punishment in CWJC No. 17334 of 2009. On 31.10.2010 the Court noticed his contention that the documents requested for were not supplied to him holding that there was procedural infirmity. The punishment of withholding 50% of pension was set aside and the matter remanded. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceedings originally were initiated while he was in service. He has superannuated on 31.12.2002. The respondents did not conduct enquiry in accordance with law. There is no allegation in the charge sheet for financial embezzlement or misappropriation but only with regard to dereliction in discharge of duty unbecoming of a public servant. The gratuity, provident fund, group insurance has been paid but only provisional pension is being paid. Counsel for the State submitted that the allegations also relate to excess/false issue of 2.3106 Metric Tons of Bulk Bitumen. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and that the departmental proceedings are still pending, the Court considers that the only appropriate order to be passed at this stage is to direct conclusion of the departmental proceeding expeditiously within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 3 The Counter affidavit states that some of the documents asked for by the petitioner have been requested for from the CBI. At this stage the Court shall only observe that if a delinquent asks for any specified document during the departmental proceeding, the duty of the Enquiry Officer is to consider the same in accordance with law and then pass appropriate orders. If he is satisfied of the relevance of the document he is required to direct the Department that the document be supplied. If the Enquiry Officer is satisfied that the documents requested for by the delinquent are not relevant for the purpose of enquiry, he is required to pass a reasoned order, so that in the ultimate event if the question of judicial review arises it facilitates the Court to apply its mind. The respondents are obliged to conclude the departmental proceeding within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before them. If they are of the opinion that the petitioner was not cooperating for conclusion of the departmental proceeding within the time fixed, they shall be at liberty to proceed exparte also, if necessary, but in that event they shall be required to disclose in writing full application of mind with regard to due opportunities granted to the petitioner to participate notwithstanding which he steadfastly refused to do so to justify conclusion of the proceeding exparte. The contention of the petitioner that he has been subjected to prolonged unnecessary harassment since 2002 and he should be left alone in his days of superannuation, if the proceedings are not concluded within six months, in the manner directed, by preventing them to proceed further, is left open but with liberty to the petitioner to agitate that matter should the circumstances so warrant, afresh. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 4