SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in notification no. 04/Aa.Vi-01- 1011/2017-5133 dtd. 23/12/2022 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no. 2) whereby penalty of deduction of 10% of the petitioner's pension amount for five years has been imposed under Sec. 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 (in short, "the Rules, 2000").

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Health and Engineering Department (now Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation) on 15/7/1987 in the unified State of Bihar. He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2005 and to the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 2018. Subsequently, he retired on 30/11/2019 from the post of Superintending Engineer, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Urban Circle, Ranchi.

(3.) It is further submitted that while the petitioner was holding the post of Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation, Division No. 1, Giridih in the year 2013-14, agreements were entered between him and 18 different contractors for executing the work of relocation of 695 Drilled Tube Wells in Giridih Division for which work orders to the tune of Rs.335.66686 Lakhs were issued whereas the sanctioned amount for the said entire projects was Rs.329.16590 Lakhs. When the payment was not being made to one of the contractors namely M/s. Sayeed Akhtar for executing the said work with respect of 25 tube wells, he filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dtd. 8/8/2016 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner of the said case i.e., the contractor, and to take a final decision. Accordingly, the decision was taken by the concerned authority vide order as contained in memo no. 872 dtd. 6/6/2017 holding that the present petitioner was responsible for excess financial burden and ordered him to make payment of Rs.5,94,745.00 from his own pocket. Aggrieved with the said decision, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 5807 of 2017 which was allowed vide order dtd. 3/7/2018 setting aside the order dtd. 6/6/2017, however liberty was granted to the respondents of the said case to proceed in accordance with law framing a fresh memo of charges by initiating a regular departmental proceeding.