S.M. RAJU Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, a Divisional Commissioner has filed this OA for quashing of the disciplinary proceeding dated 05.09.2013 [Annexure -A/1] initiated against him for an alleged misconduct in 1996 in connection with construction of Zila Parishad, Marketing -cum -Office Complex at Gaya, while functioning as Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya.

(2.) APPLICANT 's case in short, runs as follows:

(3.) BEFORE going to the legal aspect, it is necessary to deal the factual aspects and highlight, upto what extant the State Government can harass a senior officer of Indian Administrative Service. Admittedly, there was no loss to the Government or any pecuniary gain to the delinquent employee or any misappropriation of public fund or misuse of Government money. The Vigilance Department itself in its report has mentioned that there was neither any impropriety nor any corruption in the entire episode. The only allegation against the present applicant is that he had violated some rules. The charge memo or the written statement does not say what statutory rules the delinquent employee violated the rules or which circular he over -looked and how it is prejudicial to the interest of the Government. We are at least happy that the State Government exercised its wisdom and did not accord sanction for prosecution of a public servant on cheating, misappropriation or forgery when it is satisfied that this allegation could not be proved. No doubt the State Government is at liberty to initiate departmental proceeding for misconduct, if there is any intolerable lapses committed by the public servant causing disgrace or inconvenience to the administration. The letter dated 08.11.2010 [Annexure -A/5] addressed by the Joint Secretary to Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar Govt. clearly indicates that there was no defect in execution of the work and there was no loss of Government money. Even it has been categorically mentioned that there is no proof against Mr. S.M. Raju causing financial loss to the Government rather the construction work was praise worthy and there was only defect of violation of rules.