IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.701 of 2007 1. Panwati Devi, WIFE OF LATE BYSANAND SHARMA. 2. RAM JANAM GIRI 3. INDU SHEKHAR GIRI 4. SUBODH GIRI 5. VIVEKANAND GIRI 6. BINODANAND GIRI. ALL PETITIONER NO. 2 TO 6 ARE SONS OF LATE BYSANAND SHARMA. 7. RAMBHA DEVI. 8. RITA DEVI. 9. BIBHA DEVI. ALL PETITIONER NO. 7 TO 9 ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE BYSANAND SHARMA ALL 1 TO 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- CHHAP. P.S. PAROO, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR:--- PETITIONERS. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 3.THE COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SARAIYA BLOCK, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR :--RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioners :- Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choubey, S.C.8, 03. 21.07.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State; also perused the departmental proceeding file produced in compliance of the order dated 19.07.2011, wherefrom it appears that husband of Petitioner No. 1 was proceeded against for defalcating a sum of Rs. 2,78,237 and 3,71,521/- out of Rs. 9,30,829/- which was entrusted to him for execution of the various schemes while husband of Petitioner No. 1 served as Village Level Worker in the Saraiya Block of Muzaffarpur district. 2. Husband of Petitioner No. 1 was served with charge-sheet dated 04.03.1993 in response whereto he filed reply dated 17.04.1993, 26.05.1993 2 and 07.03.1994. The reply dated 07.03.1994 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-2 in which husband of Petitioner No. 1 admitted that he received aforesaid advance for execution of the various schemes, the work was also substantially executed but the measurement-book and vouchers could not be produced as the Block Development Officer and the Junior Engineer authorized to supervise the work did not sign the Measurement-Book and the vouchers yet proceeded to release the second and subsequent instalment(s) to complete the scheme. 3. Aforesaid defence of the husband of Petitioner No. 1 has been taken note by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 09.03.1994 recommending that husband of the Petitioner No. 1 be granted further six months’ time to complete the execution of the scheme entrusted to him. The Enquiry Officer in his report also took note of the fact that even without verification of the measurement-book, vouchers by the Block Development Officer and the Junior Engineer second and further instalment(s) was released to the husband of Petitioner No. 1. The report was considered by the Disciplinary Authority who did not grant any further time to the husband of the Petitioner No.1 to complete the partly executed scheme and passed order bearing Memo No. 416 dated 13.5.1994 dismissing the husband of Petitioner No. 1 for failure to complete the 3 schemes for which he had taken advance. From the dismissal order it appears that husband of Petitioner No.1 failed to complete the execution of the civil works to the extent of Rs. 6,49,758/-. Against the dismissal order husband of Petitioner No. 1 preferred appeal which has also been dismissed and the appellate order is dated 17.10.2006, Annexure-6. 4. From the punishment order dated 13.05.1994, Annexure-4 and the appellate order dated 17.10.2006, Annexure-6 it is quite evident that husband of Petitioner No.1 was given advance of Rs. 2,78237/- and Rs. 9,30,829 out of which he executed work to the extent of Rs. 5,59,308/- and the balance amount of Rs. 2,78,237 and Rs. 3,71,521/-, in all Rs. 6,49,758/- remained with him as civil work to that extent was not executed. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the report of the Enquiry Officer recommending grant of six months’ further time to the husband of Petitioner No. 1 for execution of the remaining works not being accorded, husband of Petitioner No. 1 should have been served with the reasons for differing with the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer. 5. Aforesaid submission has been noted for being rejected as husband of Petitioner No. 1 having accepted in his show-cause reply that he received the advance yet could not submit the measurement-book 4 and the vouchers on account of non-cooperation of the Block Development Officer and the Junior Engineer who refused to sign the Measurement-Book and the vouchers should have not only reported the matter to the superior authorities but also have fully completed the work. Husband of Petitioner No. 1 having neither made any report against the Block Development Officer and the Junior Engineer about their non-cooperation nor completed the execution of the civil works entrusted to him within the time granted, in my opinion, has been rightly punished for failure to execute the civil works within the time granted as also for failure to submit the vouchers. In the circumstances, there was no occasion for the Disciplinary Officer to give reasons for difference. I do not se any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. A.F.R. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)