SHYAM NANDAN PRASAD THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.4 the Superintend -ing Engineer, Design Circle, Samastipur and Executive Engineer, Design Division No. 3 Samastipur.

(3.) PETITIONER has challenged the order on the ground that in the departmental enquiry the order of punishment has been passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Samastipur whose involvement has also surfaced and identified in making payment of salary to the fake persons amounting to Rs.10,70,955.00 though such persons were never appointed in the department. The Chief Engineer is also facing departmental enquiry for the same charges as such he could not have passed any order of punishment in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. So far the appellate order is concerned it has been submitted by the petitioner that on perusal of the appellate order it is apparent that it is based on the order passed by the Chief Engineer in the departmental enquiry. The appellate authority has neither considered any document on the record nor he has considered the case of the petitioner independent of the order passed by the Chief Engineer. Since the earlier order is not sustainable the appellate order must also go. In support of this contention the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 510 of 2003 and two analogus cases. Writ petitioners of all three writ applications were employees of same zone under the same Chief Engineer, and they were also found guilty in the departmental proceeding for same charges i.e. payment of salary to the employees on fake appointment by way of transfer.