IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.539 of 2006 The State Of Bihar through Deputy Secretary, in the Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar ………. Appellant/Respondent Versus 1. Rameshwar Roy, son of Sri Dharikshan Roy, resident of Kautilya Nagar (Near A.G. Colony), P.S. – Shashtri Nagar, at the relevant period posted as Junior Engineer, Gramin Vikash Vishesh Pramandal No.2, NREP, Buxar …………….Petitioner/Respondent (1st Set) 2. Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar through its Secretary 3. Chief Engineer, Water Resources, Subernrekha Project, Incha Galudih Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, District – West Singhbhum 4. Executive Engineer, Gramin Vikas, Vishesh Pramandal …………. Respondents/Respondents (2nd set) ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar, J.C. to G.P. XVI ---------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 15th December, 2008. The State of Bihar through Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resources have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 28th April, 2005 passed by the Single Judge whereby he allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent and quashed and set aside the orders dated 10th December, 1999 as well as 27th December, 2 1999. By these two orders an amount of Rs.73,394/- was ordered to be recovered from the respondent in sixteen instalments. 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the present respondent, “the petitioner” and the present appellant, “the state government’. 3. The petitioner was employed as Junior Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the state government. While he was on deputation to the minor Distributory Division No. 4, Galudih in East Chaibasa district in the years 1989-90 to 1990-91, several agreements were executed for supply of PCC tiles for the lining works in canal under Swarn Rekha multi purpose projects. According to the state government, the petitioner was entrusted to receive supply of tiles of specified size from M/s Shukla Enterprises, Mango, Jamshedpur and from M/s Hindustan Tiles, Doranda, Ranchi. During his field inspection, the Chief Engineer, Minor Distribution, SRP, found that the tiles supplied by the contractors were not of required specifications and that payments have been made to the contractors against those supplies without taking into consideration the quality of supplied materials. The quality of supplies was got tested at the Regional Institute as well as Irrigation Research Institute, Khagaul. In the tests, it was confirmed that the tiles supplied by the contractors were not of specified quality. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated 3 against the petitioner under Rule 55-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner submitted his written response and upon conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct by not adhering to the prescribed norms and in accepting the tiles which were not in conformity with the specifications set out in the agreements. By the order dated 27th August, 1993, after having held the petitioner guilty of misconduct, the following penalty was awarded: (i) stoppage of promotion for next ten years; and (ii) although the steps for recovery of the amount paid to the contractors were being taken but if it was not possible to recover the amount from the contractors, then for the financial loss caused to the state government, the delinquent shall be liable. 4. The petitioner is said to have preferred departmental appeal aggrieved by the order dated 27th August, 1993. The fate of the departmental appeal is not known. 5. After a lapse of more than six years, on 10th December, 1990, an order came to be issued by the state government. In the said order, it has been indicated that consequent upon clause (ii) of the order dated 27th August, 1993, the matter was under consideration by the state government and, now, it has been decided 4 that 1/4th of the financial loss caused to the state government be recovered from the petitioner. In the order dated 10th December, 1999, therefore, it was indicated that an amount of Rs.73,394/- is liable to be paid by the petitioner. The amount was ordered to be recovered every month at the rate of half of his salary and the remaining amount was ordered to be recovered on his superannuation in one go from his retiral benefits. The order dated 10th December, 1999 came to be modified by the subsequent order dated 27th December, 1999 whereby the amount of Rs.73,394/- was ordered to be recovered in sixteen instalments; first instalment of Rs.4,394/- and the remaining amount in fifteen instalments at the rate of Rs.4,600/- each. 6. The two orders dated 10th December, 1999 and 27th December, 1999 came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition before this court. The Single Judge held that there was nothing to indicate that any effort has been made to recover the financial loss caused to the state government from the contractors and in absence thereof, the recovery of the amount of Rs.73,394/- from the petitioner was not justified. Consequently, the Single Judge by his order dated 28th April, 2005, quashed and set aside the orders dated 10th December, 1999 and 27th December, 1999. It is from this order that the present appeal has been preferred. 7. It may be immediately noticed that the Single Judge 5 has declined to interfere with the order of penalty dated 27th August, 1993. Therefore, the said order has to be considered as it is. As noticed above, in the order passed by the disciplinary authority, inter alia, it has been observed that for recovery of the amount paid to the contractors, the proceedings have been taken and, if it was not possible to recover the amount from the contractors, the petitioner shall be liable to make up the financial loss. Obviously, in this backdrop, question of making up the financial loss caused to the state government, in full or part by the petitioner would only arise if the efforts made by the state government in recovering the amount paid to the contractors failed. Neither in the order dated 10th December, 1999 nor in the subsequent order dated 27th December, 1999 nor in the counter affidavit filed by the state government, it has been stated that efforts made by the state government in recovering the amount paid to the contractors has failed. The details of the efforts made for recovery of the amount paid to the contractors have also not been stated nor the petitioner has been informed of such steps. The order dated 10th December, 1999 came to be passed for recovery of an amount of Rs.73,394/- from the petitioner all of a sudden. 8. We find ourselves in agreement with the consideration of the matter by the Single Judge. The impugned order does not call for any interference in the Letters Patent Appeal. 6 9. Consequently, Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/