JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Vs. BASUDEO NARAIAN SINGH SON OF SHUKHDEO SINGH; STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, GOVT OF BIHAR AND THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CENTRAL DESIGN, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant who is Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar in Water Resources Department. Nobody appears on behalf of private respondent No. 1 or on behalf of respondent No. 3, the Chief Engineer, Central Design, Water Resources Department. Learned Counsel for the State is representing respondent No. 2, the State of Bihar.

(2.) The relevant facts are not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 was posted as Assistant Engineer in the Gandak Development Division at Motihari at the relevant time. Taking recourse to summary procedure of enquiry provided under Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), he was inflicted with two punishments, one was withholding of promotion for ten years and the other was possibility of an order for recovery of alleged loss in case it could not be recovered from the contractor. Such order was passed on 13.01.1993 and thereafter the respondent No. 1 superannuated on 13.12.1996. By order dated 11.12.1999 (Annexure-7 in the writ proceeding) an order was passed to recover one fourth of the amount of loss from the salary and pensionary benefits of the respondent No. 1. According to learned Counsel for the appellant the amount to be recovered from respondent No. 1 was Rs. 29,000/- and odd.

(3.) By the order under appeal the learned single Judge found that withholding of promotion for 10 years amounted to a major punishment and hence it could not have been imposed in a summary disciplinary proceeding under Rule 55A of the Rules which is meant only for imposition of minor penalty and may include withholding of promotion. The writ Court further found that the impugned order contained in Annexure-7 showed no application of mind and there was no justification for ordering recovery from a retired employee like the respondent No. 1 without disclosing as to how it had been found that it was not possible to recover the loss from the contractor.