SACHCHIDANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the order, contained in Memo No. 3426 dated 20th December, 1997 (Annexure -7) issued by the Under -Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar (respondent No. 5) and the order contained in letter No. 1226 dated 16th May, 1998 (Annexure -8) issued by the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar (respondent No. 4). The order dated 20th December, 1997 (Annexure -7) has been issued in the purported exercise of the power under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') imposing punishment for recovery of Rs. 2.55 lakh in one time from the dues and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner and, further, withholding 25% of his pension for all times. By the order, contained in Annexure -8, the petitioner has been given notice purporting to be under Rule 139(a) and (b) of the Rules asking him to file his show cause within a fortnight as to why his pension should not be fixed at 75% after reducing 25% from his pension, failing which the department will be at liberty to take ex parte decision. The petitioner has also sought for an appropriate writ or direction against the respondents for promoting him to the post of Chief Engineer for which recommendation was also made by the Bihar Public Service Commission and monetary benefit in that regard.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner, while posted as Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Jamui during the period April 1988 to October 1991 under Chief Engineer, Deoghar, was found prima facie guilty of alleged irregularity in the original work of spill channel and faulty work done under Upper Kiul Reservoir Scheme during 1988 -89. This was done on the basis of spot verification report and the inquiry report of Flying Squad Wing of the Department and, accordingly, vide Department's Resolution No. 1257 dated 28 -6 -1996, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Services Rules'). In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated on 30th June, 1996. The respondents claim to have continued the said proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the rules and upon inquiry, the conducting officer found him guilty of the charges framed against him and submitted inquiry report. The said inquiry report was examined and considered at the Governmental level and certain charges have been found proved against the petitioner as per the impugned order (Annexure -7) and, consequently, the impugned punishments were imposed on him and thereafter the impugned notice, contained in Annexure -8, was issued.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner was put in the independent charge of Chief Engineer on 15 -4 -1996 but it appears from the counter -affidavit that the petitioner was deprived of his regular promotion to the post of Chief Engineer on account of the pendency of the said departmental proceeding and for want of Vigilance clearance. According to the case of the respondents in the counter -affidavit, the petitioner being incharge of the site recommended the unnecessary estimate prepared by the concerned Executive Engineer and connived with the Executive Engineer for making payment of Rs. 10,19,533/ - resulting heavy loss to the Government exchequer and, as such, besides the involvement of others, his involvement has been found in the alleged irregularity. Accordingly, 1/4th of the said amount has been ordered to be recovered besides ordering for withholding of 25% of his pension, vide impugned orders.