IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA 7 13.10.2009 LPA No.834 of 2008 ------- Chaturbhuj Thakur son of late Ram Swarath Thakur Resident of Village- Pahetia, PS Hajipur Sadar District Vaishali A/P Junior Engineer Mechanical Divison No.2, Birpur, Supaul (Since retired WEF 31.12.07) (Petitioner in the writ) ------- Appellant VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary –cum- Commissioner Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. Secretary –cum- Commissioner, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Engineer-in- Chief, Irrigation, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 4.Joint Secretary, Vigilance Department of Water Resources, Bihar, Patna 5. Chief Secretary, Planning and Monitoring –cum- Enquiry officer, Water Resources Department, Patna 6. Technical Advisor –cum- Presenting Officer, Planning and Monitering Anchal, Pana, Department of Water Resources, Patna 7. Executive Engineer –cum- Conducting officer, Planning and Monitoring Division, No.3 Department of Water Resources, Patna 8. Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division No.II, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Birpur, Supaul 9. Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondents in the writ) …….. Respondents -------- Heard the parties. 2. The writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC No.6832 of 2001 has been dismissed by the order 2 under appeal dated 10.9.2008 and the writ court has declined to interfere with the order of dismissal from service passed against the appellant on 7.4.2001. At the relevant time appellant was an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department. The allegations relate to the period 1983-84 and are serious in nature to the effect that although payment was shown but no work was done. Several writ petitions appear to have been filed by the appellant in the past. His writ petition bearing CWJC No.9117 of 1991 was allowed on 12.12.1995 and the dismissal order then passed was set aside on the ground that several important documents such as memo of evidence etc. were not made available to the appellant. 3. The departmental proceeding was recommenced after taking care of earlier deficiencies. Appellant challenged the re-initiation of the departmental proceeding through CWJC No.3095 of 2000 which was dismissed on 13.5.2005. The records of that case disclose that in the order dated 13.5.2005 it is mentioned that even on query from the court as to the stage of the departmental proceeding, information that the proceeding stood 3 concluded with an order of dismissal passed on 7.4.2001, was not made available to the court. This fact has been noticed in the order under appeal. 4. The issue of re-initiation of the disciplinary proceeding was sought to be raised again but that has rightly not been accepted by the writ court on account of that issue having been already decided in CWJC No.3095 of 2000. 5. The main submission on behalf of the appellant is that even in the subsequent proceeding he has not been supplied relevant documents. From Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the resolution of the State Government dated 21.3.1998, it is clear that the appellant was given opportunity and permission to inspect any record or document for the purpose of filing his written defence. The only petition given by the appellant was directed against re-initiation of the proceeding and he made no further demand of any documents in course of the departmental proceeding. The second show cause notice contained in Annexure-5 shows that in spite of notice, the appellant did not appear in the inquiry in which after 4 consideration of the inquiry report and the second show cause filed by the appellant, he has been dismissed from service on account of charges found proved. 6. There is no substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant that he was denied necessary documents as there is no proof that after the proceeding was re-initiated, there was any demand of documents by the appellant and that such demand was refused. 7. In the facts of the case, we find no merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) sk