PRAMOD CHANDRA MUNNU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar, has challenged the order of his suspension dated 3.4.2006, as contained in Annexure -6 to the writ application, as well as resolution dated 1.7.2006, as contained in Annexure -7 to the writ application, initiating departmental proceeding against him and issuing show cause alongwith a copy of the chargesheet asking him to submit his show cause to the enquiry officer appointed by the resolution.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer vide Government notification dated 16.6.1987 in the Road Construction Department. Later on, he was placed under deputation in the Rural Engineering Organization of the Rural Development Department. While on deputation in the Rural Engineering Organization between the periods June, 1990 to September, 1993. he Was posted as Assistant Engineer in the Pupri Sub -Division at Sitamarhi. While petitioner was functioning as Assistant Engineer in Pupri Sub -Division, a complaint was filed by then M.L.A. of Runni Saidpur Assembly Constituency on 15.12.1992 in the Technical Examination Cell of the Cabinet Vigilance Department, alleging several irregularities and omissions and commissions in the development and construction works of various departments in the Sitamarhi district by the concerned employees of different departments. The Technical Examination Cell of the Cabinet Vigilance Department examined the complaint and made on the spot inspection of various schemes implemented in the district during the period 24.4.1995 to 2.5.1995 and submitted its report in which gross irregularities were reported in implementation of the schemes and development works by the employees and officers of the different departments in Sitamarhi district. The said report of the Technical Examination Cell of the Cabinet Vigilance Department was sent to the Rural Development Department under the signature of Secretary, Cabinet Vigilance Department vide letter dated 9.3.1996 (Annexure -1 to the writ application) with a request to call for an explanation from the concerned officers and send the same to the Cabinet Vigilance Department alongwith its opinion. However, no explanation was called for from the petitioner by the Rural Development Department as requested in the letter of the Secretary, Cabinet Vigilance Department. As such, enclosing the enquiry report again as well as copy of letter dated 9.3.1996, by letter dated 30.1.2001, as contained in Annexure -2 to the writ application, the Cabinet Vigilance Department requested the Rural Development Department to take appropriate action in the matter and inform the Cabinet Vigilance Department.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that although matter was in the knowledge of the authorities, they sat over the matter for more than ten years and now after inordinate delay they have decided to initiate departmental proceeding against petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the enquiry conducted by the Technical Examination Cell of the Cabinet Vigilance Department petitioner was not noticed and no explanation was called for from him either by the Cabinet Vigilance Department or by his parent department. As such, inordinate delay in initiating proceeding against petitioner has caused prejudice to him and he has suffered mental agony althrough this period and therefore, initiation of departmental proceeding itself is fit to be quashed.