INDU BHUSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

(2.) The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:-

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Engineer on 05.01.1988 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1993. While he was posted as Assistant Engineer, Road Sub-Division-II under Road Division, Ranchi from 08.01.2007, the Government of Jharkhand had decided to construct 6-Lane approach Road to Mega Sports Complex, Hotwar, Ranchi, connecting National Highway-33. After construction of the approach road, the District Administration Ranchi ordered for diversion of traffic of NH-33 through this approach road. Against this order, the Secretary, Road Construction Department requested the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to abolish the said proposal as the same would reduce the age of the road; however, the said order was implemented by the District Administration, Ranchi. The observation as contained in Annexure-9 was totally ignored and the District Administration Ranchi allowed the traffic of NH-33 through the approach road of Mega Sport Complex which resulted to its failure before time. Thereafter, a three member committee consisting of two Chief Engineers and one Superintending Engineer was constituted to enquire into the reasons of failure of the approach road which submitted two separate reports instead of one unanimous report on the same date on 11.08.2009. 1st one signed by the Chief Engineer and the other one signed by two members, particularly the Chief Engineer, National Highway and Superintending Engineer National Highway. The enquiry Committee consisting of two members i.e. the Chief/Superintending Engineer National Highway exonerated the petitioner whereas; the one man committee without specifying the guilt of the petitioner submitted his general comments. Thereafter, the respondents had decided to contemplate a Departmental proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1930. The charges imputed against the petitioner had been in relation to GSB component work and WBM/BM Grade work. On 16.06.2010, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Inquiry Officer regarding furnishing of relevant documents which formed the very basis of imputation as against the petitioner. On 01.09.2010, the petitioner had submitted his interim reply disputing and denying the charges as well as explaining his duties and roles as well as deficiency and shortcomings in the designing part. On 09.09.2010, the Inquiry Officer had directed the presenting officer and the Department to furnish the required documents as demanded by the petitioner on the next date of hearing scheduled for 20.09.2010. However, the required documents though had not been furnished and the Inquiry Officer had closed the proceeding. Thereafter, again the petitioner wrote a letter dated 18.04.2011 to the Inquiry Officer to furnish the same but the requisites were not furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner with great difficulty and in absence of requisite documents relating to the charge had replied to the show-cause notice exposing the hollowness of the charges leveled against him but the respondent authorities did not at all considered the same. Finally, vide memo no.8328(S) dated 14.12.2011; the petitioner was imposed punishment of demotion on the basic pay scale and payment of subsistence allowance only for the period of suspension. Thereafter, the petitioner being aggrieved by the manner in which the departmental proceeding had been conducted and the order of punishment has been passed which was too harsh and disproportionate, preferred departmental appeal vide letter dated 29.05.2012. However, the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 17.06.2013. Aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority, the petitioner has preferred this writ application.