RAM BILAS MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality of the enquiry report (Annexure 10) and the order dated 30.12.89 (Annexure 11) following a departmental enquiry against the Petitioner on certain charges is under challenge in this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure 10 and 11.

(2.) Only such facts relevant for disposal of this writ application need be noticed. The Petitioner during the relevant time was Junior Engineer in the Road Construction Division, Sahebganj at Barhat section. An enquiry was held by the Vigilance Department and all Junior Engineers including the Petitioner posted within the Sahebganj Division were asked to explain as to how payment were made of certain works amounting to Rs. 2000/- each without technical sanction, estimate and tender vide letter dated 2.8.84 issued under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Deptt. (Respondent No. 2) a copy of which is Annexure-1. The Petitioner submitted his show cause explaining his position that all the works were done after preparation of estimate and after inviting lenders and after due sanction of the estimate by the competent authority. Though the Vigilance Department after a full enquiry reported that the Petitioner had completed the works, nonetheless a departmental enquiry was conducted against the Petitioner with the Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Chotanagpur (Respondent No. 3) as the enquiring officer vide letter dated 7.7.88. A copy of the said letter as also the chargesheet dated 4.7.88 served on the Petitioner are Annexures 2 and 3 respectively. This was surprising, for the Vigilance report, a copy of the extract portion of which has been filed as Annexure-4, had suggested that the Petitioner had completed the works. After the Petitioner was suspended on 22.12.87 he filed C.W.J.C. No. 1214 of 1988 which was disposed of on 12.4.88. vide Annexure-8 with a direction to complete the departmental proceeding within six months after staying the operation of the suspension order till the conclusion of the departmental proceeding against the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed his show cause dated 11.10.88 (Annexure 9) before the enquiring officer stating therein that he was innocent and the charges levelled against him had no legs to stand. As per the enquiry report (Annexure-10) the charges framed were found not to have been substantiated except one charge which was based on a general and vague allegation that there was some delay on the part of the Petitioner in submitting his accounts. The enquiring officer, it is alleged, did not record any evidence nor brought any document on the record of the departmental proceeding and without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to have a say in the matter submitted the report which was a gross violation of relevant departmental Rules and Regulations and also the principles of natural justice. The report which found only one vague charge substantiated against the Petitioner was based on conjectures and surmises. On the basis of the enquiry report (Annexure-10) four penalties were awarded to the Petitioner by the impugned order i.e. office order bearing No. 259 dated 30.12.89 (Annexure-11). The Petitioner claims that neither a copy of the enquiry report not a copy of the order was ever served on him and that he came to know of both the enquiry report as also the impugned order only after receiving an order dated 7.10.91 (Annexure-12) transferring him to non-work post in pursuance of one of the punishments awarded by the impugned order. Since the enquiry report (Annexure-10) is based on no evidence and the enquiry proceeding having been conducted against the due procedure established under the law, the impugned order (Annexure-11) which was based on the enquiry report deserves to be quashed. The Petitioner also claims that before passing of the impugned order inflicting the punishment, he was given no notice to explain his position. The Impugned order is also said to have been initiated on the ground that the disciplinary authority imposing the punishments had recorded no reasons for differing with the report of the enquiring officer. While praying for quashing Annexure 10 and 11 the Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of all ancillary orders issued in pursuance of the impugned order.

(3.) The Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the enquiry report was received from Cabinet (Vigilance) Department vide department's letter No. 1289 dated 6.8.93 disclosing grave charges against the Petitioner. After examination of the enquiry report a decision was taken and the departmental proceeding was in fact started against the Petitioner in accordance with law. The enquiry report submitted by the enquiring officer was on the basis of records examined by the enquiring officer. It was found during the enquiry that the Petitioner had maintained the accounts up-to-date and that the enquiry report in so far as it related to the charge of delay in maintaining the accounts up-to-date was based on records examined at the time of enquiry and which required no witnesses to be examined. The impugned order inflicting punishments is said to have been passed on the basis of the fact finding report of the enquiring officer and the claim of the Petitioner that he was not served a copy of Annexure 10 and 11 is denied. It is asserted that the Petitioner had been found guilty in respect of the allegation No. 2 which obviously refers to charge No. 2 and he had been awarded the punishment as per the decision of the Government for the same.