TRIPURARI SHANKAR PRASAD SON OF LATE SARJU PRASAD, RESIDING AT ‘SHIV KRIPA’, DUTTA VILLA COMPOUND, NEW AREA, MORAHABADI, P.O. RANCHI UNIVERSITY, P.S. BARIATU, TOWN AND DISTRICT RANCHI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY/PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, HAVING OFFICE AT PROJECT BUILDING, P.O. AND P.S. DHURWA, TOWN AND DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, prayer has been made for quashing the order of punishment contained in notification dated 04.12.2012 issued by respondent no.2, pertaining to withholding of 20% of pension of the petitioner and for quashing of the order dated 17.06.2013 passed in appeal preferred by the petitioner, confirming the order of the disciplinary authority.

(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell are that while the petitioner was holding the post of Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Jamshedpur, a memo of three charges were framed against him vide memo dated 07.02.2007. As per charge No.1, it was alleged that in Hata-Swaspur-Musabani Road, certain irregularities were found in widening work and thickness as per the specifications and the petitioner is guilty of not discharging his responsibilities as per Rule 23 of the P.W.D. Code. As regards charge No.2, petitioner was alleged to have caused financial loss to the Government, and hence, is guilty of Rule 3(2) (3) of the Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976. Charge No.3 is related to non-compliance of the direction of the Engineer in Chief as contained in letter dated 06.06.2006, as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. Subsequently, another proceeding was framed against the petitioner relating to construction of Adityapur-Kandra Road, containing three charges vide dated 06.03.2009, as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ application. After receipt of the first set of charge, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations levelled against him with reasons and supporting documents. The matter was inquired into by the Engineer-in-Chief, Jamshedpur, who submitted his report dated 18.09.2007 and the Engineer-in-Chief found the construction work in order, as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ application. In respect of charge dated 07.02.2007 inquiry officer found charge nos. 1 and 2 proved and Charge no. 3 was held not proved. In pursuance to the second proceeding, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations made therein. In the said proceeding, the inquiry officer found all the charges not proved against the petitioner, as evident from Annexure-9 to the writ application. After conclusion of the inquiry and on receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice, in respect of both the charges. In compliance to the second show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply. The disciplinary authority without considering the second show cause reply, passed the order of punishment of withholding of 20% of pension of the petitioner, which has impugned in the writ application, as evident from Annexure-12 to the writ application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the appellate authority, which stood rejected vide notification dated 17.06.2013 as evident from Annexure-14 to the writ application.

(3.) Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Navin Kumar Singh and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar as well as Mr. Shweta Singh (J.C to G.P-V) appearing for the respondents.