IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6750 of 1997 RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE NANDJI SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SARISTABAD, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, TOWN & DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION ) DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY (II) GOVERNOR’S SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Banwari Sharma, Shiv Kumar & Kedar Prasad Keshri For the State :- Mr. Sidhartha Prasad, A.C. to AAG IX ----- 11 01/04/2010 The petitioner was an Assistant Engineer who was posted at Durgawati project between the years 1987 and 1990. A visit by the flying squad at the site revealed certain wrong doings in the manner in which contract and the work was being carried out. Based on the report of the flying squad certain actions came to be taken against various persons of various hierarchy starting at the level of Junior Engineer including the Chief Engineer. At one stage the respondents State authorities decided to punish all such persons based on the report of the flying squad but such - 2 - action came to be challenged before the High Court and the High Court was of a considered opinion that the report or enquiry held by the flying squad behind the back of the officials concerned can never form the basis for passing orders of dismissal or such kind of punishment order. All those persons who approached the High Court succeeded in getting the order set aside. A direction was by the Division Bench to ensure that a proper enquiry is held by giving proper opportunity to the charged officers. Petitioner was issued chargesheet, enquiry held and the enquiry report contained in Annexure-22 declared him guilty on most of the counts. Petitioner was given liberty to show cause against the proposed penalty and then the impugned order contained in annexure-2 dated 26.4.1995 came to be passed. The said annexure is the impugned order in the present writ application. The petitioner filed appeal against annexure-2. The appeal was considered and dismissed vide order dated 25.6.1997. The said appellate order is annexure-1 to the writ application. Even this order is under challenge in the present writ application as petitioner wants quashing of both the - 3 - punishment order as well as appellate order by way of present writ application. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence and material brought against him does not successfully establish the charges and the allegations. They are more in the nature of surmises and conjectures from which the guilt can only be inferred but not decisively established. He further submits that there were other persons as well who were charged with similar allegations and punishment order passed. The nature of charges and the allegations were very similar if not identical because all those persons who were posted at Durgawati project at the relevant time were charged with a kind of common intent and purpose in causing loss to the State exchequer and causing benefit to the contractor by not insisting on implementation of the work in terms of the contract and the conditions laid down therein. Certain developments have taken place which have been brought on record and requires to be taken note of in this part of the order. Other charged or punished officials had approached this Court by several writ applications. One set - 4 - of the charge related to the Junior Engineers who happened to be posted there. Their cases were heard together and decided by a Division Bench as a batch case vide order dated 10/01/2008. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-35/5. The learned Division Bench has meticulously gone into the enquiry report of the enquiry officer, the charges and the findings rendered on the evidence which had come during the course of enquiry. The categorical finding is that the Enquiry Officer without making any effort to bring on record any material or evidence to prove any of the charges, reported the charges to be proved. The disciplinary authority thereafter in a mechanical manner had held the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer to be valid and the appellate authority too concurred with the disciplinary authority. That is not the only decision with regard to the same transaction. Yet another person, namely, Sri S. K. Verma, who happened to be the Executive Engineer dealt with in a similar manner had approached the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1524 of 1991. The learned Single Judge found error in the said enquiry and the punishment which came to - 5 - be imposed consequent to the said enquiry. State not being satisfied with the decision of the learned Single Judge filed L.P.A. No. 941 of 2001 which was heard and disposed of by a detailed order dated 15th January, 2008. The Court must fairly record that the L.P.A. decision is a more detailed order with regard to the nature of the charge and the materials. Having discussed every aspect of the matter, the Division Bench held that the enquiry did not succeed in bringing home the charges and if that be so, in absence of material witnesses and evidence, the Executive Engineer could not be punished in the manner he had been. A reading of the two decisions, therefore, leads this Court to a similar kind of conclusion keeping in mind that even this petitioner has been charged with omission and commission for which he could not be held responsible as an individual. It was after all the collective work or failure to perform which led to initiation of the departmental enquiries. If other persons have succeeded in establishing before this Court that the evidence do not successfully bring home the charges and the findings which were given by the Enquiry Officer, then there are similar kind of material and evidence - 6 - and procedure which has been adopted by the Enquiry Officer in the case of the present petitioner as well. Since this Court has the advantage of two Division Bench judgments on identical issue, therefore, the Court has refrained itself from getting into all the nitty-gritty of the discussions which in the opinion of this Court may not be required in the above stated circumstances. In view of the above stated circumstance, the Court reaches a conclusion that even this petitioner deserves to be exonerated of the charges for similar reasons. His order of dismissal contained in annexure-2 as well as the appellate order contained in annexure-1 deserve to be quashed. Since other persons have already been ordered to be reinstated from the date of dismissal and direction for payment of lawful remuneration till the date of his reinstatement, similar direction is also issued in this case. This writ application stands allowed but without any costs. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)