NANDLAL PRASAD S/O LATE SARYUG SAH, R/O Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, NEPAL HOUSE, DORANDA, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No.3492 dated 24.09.2009(Annexure-7) as well as the order issued vide Memo No. 285 dated 08.02.2007(Annexure-5) pertaining to imposition of punishment. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release the entire arrears of salary and full salary for the period of suspension with consequential benefit including the interest.

(2.) The facts, as delineated and described in the writ petition in a nutshell, is that while the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Sub Division, Chandwa, Latehar, the then Block Development Officer, Chandwa instructed him to prepare a rough estimate for construction of a dam, under the Food for work scheme of Rashtriya Samvikas Yojna. In pursuance of direction of the B.D.O., the petitioner had prepared a rough estimate and the same had also been forwarded to the Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer for verification/correction/recommendation, if any, within three days. It has been submitted that on the basis of rough estimate, no work has been done. The then Deputy Commissioner, Latehar vide letter dated 11.04.2005, on receipt of some complaints, directed the Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar to enquire into the irregularities, if any, in the said scheme, who vide letter dated 15.04.2005 constituted a Committee to enquire into the irregularities committed in the said scheme. The Committee opined that rough estimate was not upto the mark. However, on the basis of the report and suggestion of the aforesaid Committee, the District Administration has completed the work as per new estimate and on the basis of allegation levelled, the petitioner was suspended vide Memo no.2039 dated 21.05.2005 under Rule-49(A) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930(hereinafter referred as 'Rules, 1930) and the departmental proceeding was initiated vide resolution no.3466 dated 30.08.2005(Annexure-3). The memo of charge was framed and served to the petitioner and the conducting enquiry officer was appointed. On the basis of finding of the enquiry report, the departmental proceeding was culminated by the Disciplinary Authority by imposing punishment as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-7 has confirmed the order of punishment issued by the Disciplinary Authority.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.