IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17320 of 2008 Surendra Kumar Singh, S/o- Late Ramrit Singh, resident of village- Arara, P.O.+P.S.- Adapur, District- East Champaran. ……… Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Motihari, East Champaran. 5. The Executive Engineer, Tribunal Canal Division No.-1, Motihari. 6. The Constituted Enquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of the then Executive Engineer, GANDAK RUPANKAN EVAM GUN-NIRMAN CIRCLE-Shri Ram Nath Prasad Singh, Executive Engineer, Design & Test Control, Anchal, MOtihari. 7. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 8. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari. ………. Respondents. ----------- 02 12.02.2009 The height of absurdity prevailing in the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar is amply clear from the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application. Annexure-5 is an order dated 10.11.2008 issued by the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. All facts are stated in the order and not in dispute. The writ petition with consent of parties is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner is a registered contractor. On 03.04.2001 he allegedly misbehaved and assaulted the Executive Engineer, Sri Arun Prasad for which Motihari Town Police Station Case No. 84 of 2001 was registered. On completion of Police investigation chargesheet was filed and petitioner was tried. In the trial prosecution examined four witnesses including the informant, none of whom supported their earlier 2 versions, three of them were declared hostile, the petitioner was acquitted by judgment and order dated 16.05.2002 holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge, the matter should have ended there. But one does not know what happened thereafter, on 25.09.2006 the matter was revisited. A show cause for black listing the petitioner was issued on 25.09.2006 by the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department. Petitioner replied but notwithstanding that by the impugned order dated 10.11.2008 an order being passed two years after the show cause. The petitioner has been black listed merely on the ground that notwithstanding petitioner’s acquittal by the criminal Court holding that the prosecution had failed to establish charges but Departmental Committee had found the charges established. It may be mentioned here that the Departmental Committee, which has enquired into the matter had submitted its report as far back as on 03.08.2001, but in that itself it was stated that no action should be taken because the parties were in Court, the Court should decide the matter. On record also recommendations of the Chief Engineer made in the year 2006 made on 08.06.2006, wherein he had questioned both the informant and the petitioner and there nothing to complain about each other and he had recommended that the petitioner should not be proceeded against. Notwithstanding these merely because the Departmental Committee had found petitioner guilty in some aspects, the petitioner has been now black listed. In my view, the order cannot be sustained. An order black listing is to prevent a person from perpetuating a wrong again 3 immediately. An order black listing does not subsist after three years, here the action itself is initiated after 5 years of the incidence, four years after the acquittal and the order is passed seven years after the incidence and such an order cannot be sustained as it is passed on tow stale events. Moreover, the petitioner was not acquitted on any technical ground but was acquitted on merit as prosecution failed to establish the charge. In such a situation, merely because, Departmental Authorities thought otherwise they could not have taken such an action, it would virtually amount to punishing a person on a charge on which he has been acquitted. Thus, on the ground above the order black listing, as contained in Annexure-5, cannot be sustained and is quashed as such. The writ petition is allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)