JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15.2.99 at Annexure 5. The impugned order would record that in pursuance of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and consideration of the enquiry report as also the reply to the second show cause notice submitted by the petitioner the Government was satisfied of its being proved against the petitioner that the breach of the Baghmati Right Embankment on 1.7.95 at 5.30 AM initially for 25 feet which subsequently increased to 2500 feet on 4/7/95 affecting 40,000 people by the flood, was the result of absence of the petitioner from the site, which was an act of negligence and violation of government instructions by him. As a consequence three punishments, (a) censure for the years 1995 to 1998(b) stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and (c) payment of only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension while counting the period of suspension for the purpose of pension, were imposed upon the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as an Executive Engineer at the Baghmati Pramandal, Sheohar, when the incident in question as aforesaid is alleged to have occurred in the night between 30.6.95 and 1.7.95. The petitioner was then placed under suspension by an order dated 18.7.95 and departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on the report of the District Magistrate, Sheohar which would be available at Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The memo of charges were then issued to the petitioner dated 19.7.95 at Annexure 1 to the present application which would allege that on the basis of report of the District Magistrate and the Superintending Engineer, for breach of embankment on 1.7.95 at 5.30 AM, the petitioner would appear prima facie guilty of gross negligence, callousness and violation of government instructions by having remained absent from the site. In pursuance of the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 4.11.95 returning the finding of guilt for reasons of the petitioner's absence from the site. The second show cause notice having been issued on 4.3.96 replied to by the petitioner on 16.4.96 the impugned order of punishment at Annexure 5 came to be passed.