PAWAN KUMAR TIBREWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application questions the order of punishment in a departmental proceeding as upheld by the appellate authority. He has been visited with the punishment of censure to be recorded in his character roll for the year 1989 -90, stoppage of five increments with non -cumulative effect, relegated to the minimum of the pay scale of the post of Assistant Engineer and that nothing but subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension. The petitioner being an Assistant Engineer was sent on deputation to the Koshi Area Development Agency in Saharsa Division. He was served with a memo of charges dated 1.2.1993. The allegation was that as an Assistant Engineer he approved payment of bills for the works done without verification. That the bills were for drains constructed for a length of 315 ft. as recorded in the measurement book when in fact only 300 ft. of the drain has been constructed. The second charge was that the quality of drain at specified points was found to be substandard. The plaster work was not done by proper mix, leading to breakage of the plaster at several places. The petitioner filed his reply. After conclusion enquiry report came to be submitted on 12.11.1993 at Annexure -2.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted from the conclusion of the enquiry report that the Officer arrived at the conclusion that there was no material to hold short construction of the drain by 15 feet or sub - standard quality of construction. The enquiry report was, therefore, inconclusive and did not return a finding of guilt but only concluded that the charges do not appear to be serious, the petitioner at best was negligent in procedures and the department may take an appropriate decision on the report. Learned counsel next submits from the enquiry report itself that the Inquiry Officer became a witness himself in the enquiry. He refers to the recitals in the enquiry report that the Inquiry Officer went to the site, collected evidence of the villagers and recorded his opinion based on his discussions with the villagers. He submits that once the Inquiry Officer becomes a witness himself in the proceeding, the entire proceeding is vitiated.