STATE OF BIHAR Vs. S K VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Bihar and its officers, the appellants, have filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 10th of September, 1999, passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1524 of 1991 [2000 (1) PLJR 116] by which he has allowed the writ application filed by the writ petitioner -respondent (hereinafter referred to the writ petitioner) and quashed the charge -sheet, enquiry report as well as the final order of dismissal passed against him.

(2.) THE writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the appellant -State in 1962 and was promoted as Executive Engineer in Durgawati Dam Division No. 1. Complaints were received with regard to misconduct against him while he was posted there and a Flying Squad headed by the Superintending Engineer, namely, Shri Hari Sharan Singh, was constituted to make enquiry with regard to the allegations, which inspected the site in November, 1987 and April, 1988 and submitted two inspection reports on 25.1.1988 and 23.5.1988, copies of which were appended as Annexures 3 and 4, respectively, to the writ petition.

(3.) THE reports submitted by the Flying Squad were examined at the departmental level and it was found that the writ petitioner and a large number of other Engineers committed grave misconduct causing loss of crores of rupees to the Government. The writ petitioner was suspended on 22.3.1990 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding, a copy of which was appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The writ petitioner filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 2390 of 1990 before this court challenging the said order. Before this court, allegations were made against the head of the Flying Squad -Hari Sharan Singh by the writ petitioner. This court finally disposed of the matter on 30.7.1990 and directed the Secretary of the Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, to look into the aforesaid allegations against Hari Sharan Singh and in case the writ petitioner was able to substantiate the aforesaid allegations, the order of suspension would be withdrawn. This court further directed that the departmental proceeding, which had already been initiated against the writ petitioner, should proceed and should be concluded preferably within four months from the date of production of the order. The order of this court was received in the department on 10.8.1990. As the departmental proceeding was not concluded within four months, according to the writ petitioner, he filed the present writ application, challenging the order of suspension, out of which this appeal arises.