IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7199 of 2010 1. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, S/O LATE BACHHA PRASAD YADAV, VILLAGE & POST- PHULWARIA, TOLA- TEGARAHA,VIA-BHAPTIYAHI, P.S.-KISHANPUR, DISTRICT- SUPOL, BIHAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SHICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SHICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SHICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SHICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 5. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SHICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 6. CHIEF ENGINEER, HEAD QUARTER BIRPUR, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SHICHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR PATNA. 7. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BARRAJ CIRCLE, BIRPUR, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SHICHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 3 03.02.2011 For irregularities committed in the work of plugging of breaches in Kosi embankment, three junior engineers and one assistant engineer were proceeded against through different separate departmental proceedings for charges which were almost identical. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assistant engineer was punished and the matter was referred to the Governor where his punishment was quashed and the proceeding was dropped. Out of the rest of the three junior engineers one has died. 2 The two who remained i.e. one Ratan Kumar Singh and the present petitioner were separately punished. The said Ratan Kumar Singh came to this Court and this Court, by order, as contained in Annexure-17 dated 22.12.2009, allowed his writ application and quashed the punishment order without any liberty to the respondents to proceed further. This Court noticed a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 331, in which it has been held that, in the case of identical charges and identical evidence, the final conclusion of the departmental proceeding should also be similar and also noticed the fact that, in the present case, senior officer, facing the same charges, had been exonerated. Petitioner also raises the same issue in this case. He has also been punished after protracted proceeding and litigation. He has been punished for the same charges and on the same evidence, whereas the Assistant Engineer has been exonerated. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the said judgment of the Apex Court 3 in the case of Man Singh (supra) punishment order of the petitioner is also liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that the charges and evidence against all the delinquents were identical and for common alleged irregularities they had been proceeded against. He also does not dispute that the Assistant Engineer has been exonerated from the same charges. In view of such admission on the part of learned counsel for the State, this Court, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Man Singh (supra) and following the order passed by this Court in the case of Ratan Kumar Singh, as passed in his writ application, namely, CWJC No. 15857 of 2009 on 22.12.2009, quashes the punishment order against the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-1. The writ application is, therefore, allowed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)