RAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order, dated 20.4.2009, issued by the Engineer-in-Chief (North), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (Annexure-9), the appellant was dismissed from service following a departmental proceeding drawn against him. At the relevant time, he was holding the post of Junior Engineer, Mechanical Division, Water Resources Department, under Bhagalpur Division. The appeal as well as revision preferred against the order of dismissal, too, was dismissed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority by order, dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure-11), and order dated 6.5.2010 (Annexure-13), respectively. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 12102 of 2010, which came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order, dated 25.11.2011.

(2.) The appellant has challenged the order of his dismissal from service as well as the order of the learned Single Judge on the following grounds:--

(3.) Countering the stand, learned counsel for the State submits that the appellant was found guilty of gross disobedience as well as of having remained on unauthorized absence. The departmental proceeding was conducted fairly and adequate opportunity was given to the appellant to defend himself. Further-more, no application was filed before the Enquiry Officer making a prayer for payment of subsistence allowance. Nonetheless, subsistence allowance, for the period, 15.6.2007 to 24.12.2007, was paid through Treasury Voucher No. 5, dated 26.6.2008. However, subsistence allowance was not paid for the period from 24.12.2007 to 20.12.2009, because the appellant did not comply with the requirements of the proviso to Rule 10(1) as well as Rule 10(2) by marking attendance, at the Headquarter, during the period of suspension, though the appellant was so required to do. He submits that the appellant has made complaint right from the Executive Engineer to the rank of Principal Secretary of the Department and even filed criminal cases against the Engineer-in-Chief as well as the Principal Secretary. He, thus, submits that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in accordance with law and the appeal, being devoid of merit, was fit to be dismissed and has, therefore, been dismissed.