RAM KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.401, SHYAM KUNJ KALI MANDIR ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. LALPUR, DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, NEPAL HOUSE, P.O. AND P.S.DORANDA, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the Memorandum issued vide memo dated 05.01.2016 along with the alleged charge in 'Prapatra K' of the said memorandum(Annexure-5) whereby a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner for an allegation of committing irregularity in passing the building plan by giving benefit to a builder in Building Plan Case no.1103/2008. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revoke the impugned Memorandum dated 05.01.2016(Annexure-5) and for direction on the respondents to restrain them to proceed with the departmental enquiry on the alleged charge of committing irregularities by the petitioner in sanctioning the building plan.

(2.) The facts, as delineated and described in the writ petition in a nutshell is that the petitioner is an Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department. The services of the petitioner was placed with the Urban Development Department and he was given charge of the Town Planner in the Regional Development Authority, Ranchi. In pursuance of direction given by this Court in W.P.(PIL) no.1531 of 2011, an FIR was registered by CBI vide RC-03(A)/2011-R on 30.03.2011 against unknown officers/officials of Ranchi Regional Development Authority including the petitioner. In the aforesaid CBI case, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody by the Special Judge, CBI. and the petitioner was suspended vide Notification dated 29.07.2011 by the department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand. Thereafter, the petitioner was enlarged on bail and after more than two years of suspension of the petitioner, the same was revoked and he was posted in Minor Irrigation Quality Control Division, Ranchi vide Notification dated 02.11.2013. Thereafter, the services of petitioner was repatriated to department of Panchayati Raj and he was posted as Incharge District Engineer Zila Parishad, Chatra with additional charge of Koderma vide Notification dated 31.12.2013. M/s. Ashlesha Corporation and Binay Kumar, who are supposed to be beneficiary of the Building Plan of the Hotel Le Lac for which the Building Plan No.1103/2008 and Building Plan No.706/2004 was sanctioned, moved before this Court in W.P.(Cr.) no.319 of 2011 and order taking cognizance has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2015 as evident from Annexure-1 to this writ petition. In the said order, this Court held that Building Plan no.1103/2008 has been passed in accordance with the specification and there is no illegality and irregularity committed therein. Though the order of this Court dated 27.11.2015 was brought to the notice of the respondents by filing a representation, the petitioner was again placed on suspension under Rule 49(A) of the Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules vide Memo dated 05.01.2016(Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and the said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) NO.116 of 2016 and this Court has been pleased to quash the same by judgment dated 16.03.2016(Annexure-4). Thereafter, a Memorandum dated 05.01.2016 (Annexure-5) has been served under the signature of Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand initiating the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. It has been averred in the writ petition that since the plans of the building including the Plan No.1103/2008 has been held to be in accordance with law by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) no.319 of 2011, no prima facie case is made out for conducting a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned memorandum is illegal, without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. It has further been averred in the writ petition that the charge sheet issued vide 'Prapatra K' is not sustainable in view of findings of this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.319/2011. Since the alleged charge(Annexure-5) contrary to Annexure-1[W.P.(Cr.)319/2011], the petitioner left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court for challenging the same under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has vociferously submitted that impugned Memorandum(Annexure-5) of initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner is an arbitrary exercise of power, since basis on which the charges have been framed has already been settled by the decision of this Court as is reflected in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has been submitted that continuation of the departmental proceeding by virtue of impugned memorandum would be in the teeth of the judgment passed by this Court vide Annexure-1 and would cause great prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been subjected to put under suspension for a long period and the continuation of the proceeding on the very same issue has already been given quietus by this Court as reflected in Annexure-1 and therefore, the instant impugned proceeding would amount to double jeopardy.