SHAMBHU NATH BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12th February, 1998, contained in Annexure 11, whereby and whereunder punishment of withholding of 100% of pension for one year and six months has been inflicted upon him in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and further it has been directed that though his suspension period shall be counted for the purpose of pension, but he shall not be entitled for anything more than the subsistence allowance during the suspension period.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts are that the Petitioner was an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department. While he was posted as Estimating Officer in West Canal Division, Valmiki Nagar, Champaran on 12.3.1989 the Western Canal breached. The Petitioner along with other officers were deputed to do the repair work and the Canal after necessary repairs was pressed into service for release of the water on 28.5.1989. Within three days thereafter the Canal again breached at the same point on 30.5.1989 which caused huge financial loss to the Government as well as to the villagers. It is claimed that the team which had repaired the damage earlier was ready to repair the damage but were prevented from doing so by the angry villagers who were not paid their compensation for the damage. Consequent to the second breach, the Petitioner was removed from the work on 14.6.1989 and on 17.6.1989 a central team from Central Water Commission visited the Canal and inspected the site. A report was submitted by the said team that the repair work was not done as per the specification. On the basis of the said report, the Petitioner was suspended on 29.7.1989 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding, which was later initiated under Memo No. 755 dated 14.6.1990, contained in Annexure 2. The Chief Engineer, Planning and Monitoring was appointed as enquiry officer, who submitted his report on 15.1.1992, vide Annexure 5. On consideration of the enquiry report, the State Government passed the order of punishment on 12.5.1993, vide Annexure 6, placing the Petitioner at the initial stage of the pay scale of the post of Assistant Engineer.

(3.) The validity of the said order was assailed before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1121 of 1996, which was disposed of by order dated 2.5.1997, contained in Annexure 7. This Court, having regard to the fact that the report of the enquiry officer was not supplied to the Petitioner and that no reason was assigned by the disciplinary authority for his disagreement with the said report, directed that the matter requires further consideration and, accordingly, the order of punishment was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Secretary, Water Resources Department with a direction that he shall first serve the copy of the enquiry report on him and ask him to file show cause indicating to him the possible points of disagreement so that the Petitioner may file effective show cause and explain the doubts of the authorities. It was further directed that appropriate decision in accordance with law shall thereafter be taken without any unreasonable delay.