IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15697 of 2005 Chotae Lal Yadav, Son of Late Barnad Yadav, Resident of Mohalla: Dharmshala Road, Naulakka Mandir, Police Station: Rajgir, Post Office: Rajgir, District: Nalanda. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, “Vishweshwerraiya Bhawan” Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Engineer-In-Chief cum Additional Commissioner, Road Construction Department, “Vishweshwerraiya Bhawan” Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer (South) cum the President of Departmental Liability “Vishweshwerraiya Bhawan” Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Central Circle, Road Construction Department, Chajjubagh, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Road Works Division, Ranchi Road, Biharshariff (Nalanda)-803101. ….Respondents. ----------- 02. 10.04.2009 The petitioner has challenged the order of the Secretary, Road Construction Department passed on basis of the findings of the Liability Committee by which the petitioner’s claim for payment of work done has been rejected. A reference to the report and the order would show that the only ground for rejecting the claim is failure of State Officials to abide by directions and circulars issued by the Government. Denial is not on ground that the work was not done but on the ground that the work though tendered and agreement entered into was not got executed - 2 - as per Government’s Circulars and government records were not accordingly maintained. In may view, this is the responsibility of the State and if the State Officials fail to abide by the Government Circulars the petitioner can not be penalized. In my view, what is said by the respondent, Secretary is virtually that my officers fail to discharge their responsibility in the manner in which they were required to do and therefore you the petitioner lose your right to claim for payment. There can not be anything more absurd. If such stand is accepted as put forward by the State then in every contract Government would ensure some or the other defect is committed by some of its officers and then having taken work deny payment to the contractor who has nothing to do with those responsibilities. This is one aspect of the matter which itself renders the order of the Liability Committee and the Secretary bad and not sustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside and the matter remanded to the Secretary for a fresh enquiry and an order. Let it be recorded that petitioner had earlier - 3 - moved this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 7264 of 1997 which was disposed of directing him to make a representation before the Secretary. When the Secretary did not act, a contempt application was filed which resulted in the order which has now been assailed as noted above. The order is nothing but a lame excuse to deny legitimate payments. Even though this Court were to give benefit of doubt to the respondent, Secretary, what surprises this Court is that if the Secretary finds fault with his own officials which has been made, the reason for denying payment to the petitioner by Liability Committee and Secretary, why he did not recommend penal disciplinary action against his own officers for dereliction of duty. Responsibility must be fixed by the Secretary on his officer and I direct so while setting aside the order of the Liability Committee and the Secretary. I also direct the Secretary to immediately fix up responsibility of the Officers concerned who fail to comply with the statutory responsibility and maintain records and initiate departmental proceeding against them. - 4 - The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid two sets of directions. However within six months from today the Secretary would file a report to this Court as to the progress in relation to the departmental proceedings against erring Officers. It is made clear that if on a reconsideration of the matter Liability Committee admits petitioner’s claim then payment would be made to the petitioner within one month of the order. In any event the order must be communicated to the petitioner and must be passed after granting liberty of hearing to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of. Vikash/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)