IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5964 of 2010 SHRI GOPAL KRISHANA, aged about 57 years, S.O Late Bhubaneshwar Ram, resident of Village Rampur P.s. Rampur, Dist-Buxar, presently posted as Chief Engineer (South), Building Construction Department, Bihar, Visheswaraya Bhawan, Belly Road, Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 3. Principal Secretary to the Govt. Road Construction Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Secretary to the Govt., Road Construction Deptt. Govt. of Bihar Patna. 5. Joint Secretary to the Govt., Road Construction Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. Deputy Secretary (Vigilance) Road Construction Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna ----------- 2 07.12.2010 I.A. No. 4665 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner for necessary amendments in the writ application and for liberty to challenge the order dated 6.4.2010 by which his second appeal has also been dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned in the I.A. the same is allowed. In this writ application petitioner has challenged the order of minor punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect as contained in Annexure-5 as well as the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting his 2 appeal as contained in Annexure-7 and also order dated 06.04.2010 of the second Appellate Authority rejecting his second appeal as contained in Annexure-10. From the show cause notice as contained in Annexure-2 and the impugned order, Annexure-5 it appears that the charge against the petitioner was of delaying clearance of a file for granting technical approval for construction of a check post. Petitioner at the relevant time was Chief Engineer in the Central Planning Organization in the Road Construction Department. A file for granting technical approval for construction of a check post was received in his office on 31.1.2008. The file remained in the office for over 3 months and finally could be cleared with the technical approval only on 3.4.2008.The delay in construction of check post therefore caused revenue loss to the State Government. Hence, a show cause was issued to the petitioner to which he replied through Annexure-3. In his said reply, petitioner explained the movement of the file in his office. He stated that he was transferred from the post w.e.f. 27.3.2008 and therefore, he was not responsible for the delay caused in transmitting the file to the Engineer-in-Chief 3 with technical approval thereafter. From the show cause it appears that, after the receipt of the file petitioner endorsed it to different persons for examination and report and file thus kept on moving in his Organization itself and was cleared and sent only on 3.4.2008. Hence movement of the file and delay in granting technical clearance to the said proposal of construction of check post caused in his Organization stands established. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay was not on the part of the petitioner as he had endorsed the file to the concerned section under him for scrutiny etc. Therefore, he submits that petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay. He submits that the entire process actually took only one month and seventeen days and not three months during the period of the petitioner. It may be that the file was endorsed by the petitioner to his subordinate officers for scrutiny and report, but the fact is that the nature of the work required as expeditious dealing with the file. The petitioner was heading the Organization and, therefore, he cannot be absolved of the vicarious liability for the delay caused, though technically file may have remained 4 on the table of some of his subordinate officers. Being the head of the Organization it was required from the petitioner to appreciate the urgency in the matter and ensure that the file is cleared immediately and sent to the concerned authorities to proceed in the matter. By the impugned order the petitioner has been awarded a minor punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. Hence, the effect of the punishment will stand wiped out on completion of one year as per the newly inserted Explanation 2 in Rule 14 of the 2005 Rules and petitioner will be restored in the pay scale at the point he will be entitled and shall also be considered for promotion from the due date after the period of punishment expires. In the circumstances, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application, and the same is dismissed. Prakash ( J.N.Singh, J.)