IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8309 of 2007 SARJU PRASAD . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2 5..5.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and reply to it by the petitioner. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (civil) in the Minor Irrigation Department. Subsequently he was deputed in the Water Resources Department. While posted in the Tube Well Division Sasaram, Camp Dehri a project was undertaken by the State of Bihar for installation of new tube-wells, the project was financed by NABARD. 13 projects were undertaken for installation of Tube-wells at different places. Petitioner and Nagdeo Prasad were engaged as Junior Engineers for execution of these projects under the supervision of Assistant Engineers, Executive Engineers and the Superintending Engineers. All 13 Projects, which were undertaken, were completed and the Superintending Engineer, monitoring them submitted his report on 7.12.2001 showing all 13 Tube-Wells works successfully 2 installed, without any defect. The project coordinator, Tube Well Wing, Minor Irrigation Department submitted its report regarding successful installation of Tube-Wells. The Chief Engineer also submitted his report regarding successful installation of Tube-Wells. However a report was submitted on 20.12.2002 by the then Chief Engineer making complaint against the then Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and other Junior Engineers, relating to defective work at five places where Tube-Wells was installed. Show cause notice was issued on 3.9.2003 to the petitioner and he was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. Petitioner’s case is that similar action was taken also against the Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and another Junior Engineer Nagdeo Prasad. Charges were framed and served upon the petitioner on 28.7.2004, wherein six allegations were made. Charges framed against the petitioner as well as Nagdeo Prasad were same in verbatim. All six allegations were word to word same. However, departmental proceeding did not proceed on day to day basis, after submission of show cause by the petitioner. An exparte enquiry was held, without 3 providing any document to the petitioner, without examining any witnesses and without allowing any opportunity of hearing to them. It is also alleged by the petitioner that even complete inquiry report was notfurnished along with a second show cause notice with the proposed punishment. Despite the fact that Only partial enquiry report was furnished, the petitioner submitted his second show cause, which also was not considered. A common enquiry report was submitted by the conducting Officer without specifying, how the charges were found to be proved against each delinquent. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Inquiry report indicated that Charge No.1, Charge No.3 and Charge No.4 were found to be proved against the petitioner, but so far the finding recorded in the inquiry report is concerned, that was vague without specifying the specific role of the petitioner in this regard. Finally a punishment of dismissal from service was awarded, against petitioner and Nagdeo Prasad, since they were Junior Engineers. On the basis of same enquiry report, with similar finding, lighter punishments were awarded against Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineers, though charges were 4 also found to be proved against them. Petitioner along with supplementary affidavit had annexed the punishment order passed in case of Nagdeo Prasad. On perusal, it is apparent that the charges against him were found to be proved in the same manner and similar punishment of dismissal had been awarded against him. In the counter affidavit, there is no denial of the allegations made by the petitioner regarding ex parte enquiry, non examination of the witnesses, non supply of documents and providing partial inquiry report to the petitioner. Simply it has been stated that the petitioner being the Junior Engineer was responsible to execute work at the site and make entry in the measurement book of the work done. In the Measurement book entry of such works, have also been made, which have not been done. This was with an intention to cause huge monetary loss to the State. Nagdeo Prasad had challenged his punishment order in CWJC No. 1906 of 2008 making similar allegation, that even preliminary enquiry report of the Chief Engineer, Tube-well (West) Patna, Letter No. 7/ confidential dated 25.1.2003, on which memo of charge based, was not supplied, with the 5 memo of charge, list of witnesses were not supplied, neither the documents which were relied upon for proving charges were supplied to him. On consideration of procedural lapses and irregularity in conducting the departmental proceeding, it was held that order of punishment dated 5.4.2007 and the appellate order dated 16.5.2008 are not sustainable. Both the orders were quashed. However the respondent authorities were given liberty to re- conduct the departmental proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law. Only to the extent of the punishment, alleged to have been imposed upon Suresh Prasad, Kamala Kant and Beena Ram. I find that the petitioner is also entitled for similar relief. The punishment order whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service is quashed. The respondent authorities are given liberty to re-conduct the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and re-consider the punishment awarded to the petitioner. Petitioner shall be reinstated and claim of the petitioner regarding backwages will be settled in accordance with law. A. Kumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.)