MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD Vs. K V SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005, is directed against the order dated 17. 1. 2006 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 4122/1993 by the learned Single Judge whereby the penalty of dismissal from service of respondent has been quashed with a direction to the appellants to reinstate him with full back wages.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant no. 1 is the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (in short, "the Board") and appellant no. 2 is its Chairman. On 7. 4. 1981 a contract was given by the board to one S. K. Pathak for the construction of 10 H. I. G. and 20 M. I. G. houses near Parijat Hotel in Satna town. Initially, the period of contract was for one year which was extended from time to time up to 15. 3. 1985. The respondent, who was working as Executive Engineer in the Board, was posted in Satna Division from 10. 5. 1982 to 29. 6. 1985. It is not in dispute that he supervised the construction work of the aforesaid houses and U. S. Agarwal was his Assistant Engineer. It appears that despite the regular supply of construction materials such as cement, steel, A. C. sheets, door and window panels, etc. by the Board, the contractor did not complete the work and as such his agreement was cancelled. After the cancellation of agreement, the Board found that the contractor caused a financial loss of Rs. 3,02,818. 82 to it by not returning the construction material supplied to him and removing the same from the work site. The board also found that the respondent and U. K. Agarwal, without showing due care and caution and without taking into consideration the actual requirement of the construction work, issued more than the required construction material to the contractor and failed to restrain him from removing the same from the construction site which resulted into huge financial loss.

(3.) A departmental enquiry was, therefore, initiated against the respondent and U. K. Agarwal on the charge that they supplied excessive construction material to the contractor irrespective of his stock position and the requirement of work and that they failed to prevent the contractor from taking away the construction material from the site. As per the charge, the respondent and U. K. Agarwal showed lack of devotion to duty and want of absolute integrity as required under Rule 3 (i) and (ii) of the madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965 (in short, "the conduct Rules" ). The respondent, in his reply, to the charge sheet denied the charge and submitted that he issued the construction material as per rules in the interest of the Board with the sole object to complete the construction work at the earliest more particularly because the progress of work by the contractor was extremely slow. He also submitted that the figures with regard to the left construction material on the spot had been exaggerated and that his subordinate officers did not correctly record the quantity of construction material issued to the contractor as a result of which the same was wrongly shown as excessive. Likewise, U. K. Agarwal also denied the charge by submitting a written reply.