RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The former writ application questions an order of punishment in a departmental proceeding. It affects his claim for promotion in the latter case. Both applications are therefore connected and have been taken up for consideration together and are being disposed by a common order.

(2.) The petitioner who held the post of Superintending Engineer at the relevant point of time is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 13.5.2009 in a departmental proceeding visiting him with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and censure to be entered in his character roll for the years 1997-1998. The challenge is also to the subsequent order dated 27.11.2009 rejecting the review application preferred by him under Section 24(2) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules').

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that for certain alleged acts of payments made to fictitious muster roll employees fixing liability for embezzlement to the extent of Rs. 1,14,461/-, Lakhisarai Surajgarha Piri Bazar P.S. Case No. 85 of 1998 was lodged against him. After investigation final form was submitted on 11.12.1999 and he was not charge-sheeted. Despite notice by the Court none appeared on behalf of the informant on 23.2.2000, the closure report came to be accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the proceedings closed. On 13.2.2007 a memo of three charges were framed in a departmental proceeding. The first charge related to his administrative failure to participate in an enquiry for the same with the intention to defer the enquiry. The second charge related to the institution of the aforesaid First Information Report and the third charge was carved out of the second charge with regard to the same amount of Rs. 1,14,461/-. The charges were therefore interconnected. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report of exoneration on 3.7.2007 on all three charges. On charge No. 1, the enquiry report accepted his plea of inability to participate due to illness. With regard to charge Nos. 2 and 3 it held that the Department did not produce any evidence by way of Measurement Book, Bills, Muster Roll, connected files and estimates which were all necessary for determination of the allegations.