SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE RAM BACHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF AT AND P.O. AND P.S. KESHARI NAGAR, AJANTA COLONY, DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for quashing of the order bearing Memo No. 91 dated 6.1.2016 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, whereby the petitioner has been imposed the following penalties:

(2.) The disciplinary proceedings in question was initiated against the petitioner for deficient quality of work in the matter of construction of a road under the Mukhiya Mantri Gramin Sarak Yojana running in between the Middle School Khorampur to Bilat Chouk in the district of Muzaffarpur.

(3.) Some undisputed facts connected with the matter in contest is that the work in question was allotted to the contractor M/s Maruti Enterprises, Gudri Road, Hajipur and was to commence on 15.3.2007 with its date of completion fixed on 14.9.2007. Such fact is manifest from the on spot enquiry report present at Annexure-2 which was conducted on a complaint received from the villagers, a copy of which has been placed on record vide Annexure-20 to the third supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 20.8.2016. The on spot enquiry into the complaint was conducted by the Executive Engineer, Works Division, Hajipur, the Executive Engineer, Soil Division Muzaffarpur and the Superintending Engineer, Work Circle, Muzaffarpur. The substance of the finding of the enquiry so conducted is, that while the seal coat was found to have an average thickness of 16 MM, the thickness of the metal work was found to be 144 mili meters as against the required thickness of 150 mm and at some places as low as 134 mm, 112 mm and 131 mm. The petitioner was put to notice on 9.8.2008 vide Annexure-3 series enclosing a memo of charge to such effect and which was responded to by the petitioner vide Annexure-4 on 25.8.2011, explaining the discrepancy so found in the thickness of the seal coat as well as the metal work carried out. Not being satisfied, that the disciplinary authority who in the present case is the State Government in its Rural Works Department entrusted the enquiry to the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiry and one Gopal Narain Singh, Deputy Secretary, Rural Works was appointed as a Presenting Officer vide resolution dated 27.2.2007 present at Annexure-5. The Enquiry report submitted by the Commissioner, Departmental enquiry is placed at Annexure-6 upholding the charge. The petitioner was put to second notice enclosing the copy of the enquiry report vide letter dated 27.1.2015 of the Joint Secretary present at Annexure-7. The petitioner filed an exhaustive reply to the enquiry report on 11.2.2015 vide Annexure-8 and requested for a fresh enquiry through a technical hand. The request of the petitioner was accepted and an enquiry under the Chief Engineer was again conducted on the allegations, the report of which forms the part of Annexure-15 series present at running page 150. The Chief Engineer while accepting the explanation given by the petitioner on the discrepancy in the thickness of the seal coat as well as thickness of the metal work, has recommended for dropping the proceeding which recommendation has been accepted not only by the Secretary of the Department but also the Departmental Minister as manifest from running page 152. Since the petitioner happens to be a Gazetted Officer, hence the matter reached the Chief minister for his opinion and in between the Chief Secretary opined against the dropping of the proceedings and instead recommended for punishment of censure and withholding of two annual increments with non cumulative effect vide Annexure-17 on 26.10.2015 which has been endorsed by the Chief Minister on 27.10.2015 vide Annexure-17 and the consequential order passed is impugned at Annexure-1, vide Notification bearing memo No. 91 dated 6.1.2016. The petitioner feeling aggrieved is before this Court.