DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1 (State of U.P.) whereby exercising the powers under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, punishment of reducing the pension of the petitioner by 50% has been passed. Petitioner at the relevant time was working as Chief Engineer Level II in the Public Works Department, Government of U.P. when he was selected to be the Chief Engineer of a project by the name of U.P. Health Systems Development Project (in short referred to as UPHSDP), which had financing from the World Bank. Petitioner was placed on deputation in the Medical Department. He was made the Chief Engineer of the Project vide order dated 1.7.2000 to ensure and carry out the works in timely and proper manner. As per agreed terms and conditions, the petitioner continued to work as Chief Engineer of the aforesaid project U.P.H.S.D.P. till 2.8.2004 whereafter he joined his parent department.

(2.) Petitioner was suspended by order dated 25.10.2004 on the charges that he had got works carried out worth Rs. 100 crores and payment made to the tune of Rs. 65 crores without getting the estimate prepared and without obtaining technical sanction for the same. Thereafter, the Engineer-in-Chief (Department of the P.W.D.) who had been appointed as the Inquiry Officer issued a charge-sheet dated 25.11.2004 containing five charges.

(3.) The first charge was to the effect that there were technical and financial irregularities as without preparing the detailed estimate and without obtaining technical sanction completed the work of Rs. 100 crores and made payment amounting to Rs. 65 crores. This was said to be a serious financial irregularity. The charge also mentions that the petitioner was asked to prepare detailed project report with the help of consultants but actual interest was never shown to get the detail project report prepared. The second charge was to the effect that during the term of the project, contrary to the Rules of the World Bank lot of payment had been released without administrative and financial sanction from the competent authority. The third charge was to the effect that the petitioner mislead the Project Steering Committee and the Project Governing Body as also the World Bank to get the estimate approved and payment sanctioned from the higher authorities and the committees. The Charge No. 4 was to the effect that during his tenure the petitioner continued to mislead the officers by providing incorrect statistics and Charge No. 5 was to the effect that certain works which had been completed two years earlier, their bills had not been given a final shape.