BINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mrityunjay Kumar, learned AC to AAG No. 10. The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of an order dated 6.7.2005 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna. By the said order after departmental enquiry the petitioner was inflicted with three punishment which are:-

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner on certain charges was put under suspension vide order contained in Memo No. 4770 dated 20.9.2003 in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. Thereafter memo of charge was served through Annexure - 5 to the writ petition and after departmental enquiry the conducting officer submitted report. In its report the conducting officer found charges partly proved. After submission of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority has passed the order vide Annexure - 1 to the writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of punishment firstly on the ground that in the departmental proceeding charge served on the petitioner was completely vague and on such charge it was difficult for the petitioner to give categorical explanation. However, he had submitted a detailed explanation and also had indicated that charge is vague. He further submits that before conducting departmental enquiry a technical enquiry was got conducted on the basis of complaint received from one Sri Radha Ram, the then Executive Engineer. The technical enquiry was conducted by a committee consisting of Chief Engineer (South), Tube wells, Superintending Engineer, Tube wells and Executive Engineer, Tube wells, Patna Division. During the technical enquiry no irregularities were found. Even thereafter the petitioner was proceeded departmentally on a vague charge. Of- course the petitioner tried to justify his innocence and the enquiry officer also found that many of the charges had not been proved, however, on part prove of some charges enquiry report was submitted and thereafter the disciplinary authority without following the principle of natural justice as well as law settled by the Apex Court, without supplying enquiry report and asking for second show cause, passed the impugned order. He submits that since the order of punishment was itself illegal, the petitioner preferred an appeal giving detailed reasons for assailing the order of punishment. However, the appellate authority without application of mind, in a perfunctory manner, rejected the appeal vide Annexure - 2 to the writ petition. Accordingly, it has been prayed that both the orders are required to be set aside.