AJAY BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing notification dated 04.04.2013 whereby petitioner has been imposed with a punishment of reduction of pay-scale to the minimum of his post and recovery of Rs.12,10,620.34 out of the financial loss caused to the Government and further for quashing the notification dated 19.02.2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise for filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner at the time of filing of the writ application has been working as Assistant Engineer and posted as Estimating Officer, Building Construction Department, Chhotanagpur Circle, Ranchi. In compliance to the order dated 30.06.2009 passed in W.P.(PIL) No.803 of 2009, a first information report was instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Ranchi being RC 13(A)/2009 (R) for offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein preliminary enquiry was taken up for the alleged large scale irregularities committed by the Engineers of the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, contractors and other persons in the matter of purported procurement of Bitumen for construction of road. The Central Bureau of Investigation, after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner, for the following charges:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the person who was appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the matter and the disciplinary authority who imposed the impugned punishment is the same person. At every stage, therefore, a person became a judge of his own cause which is in teeth of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot survive the test of legal scrutiny as the decision making process has been vitiated beyond redemption. On the merit of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that samples of alleged Bitumen were tested by the experts in the Laboratories at Birla Institute of Technology and as per report submitted by the Birla Institute of Technology, the quality of bitumen has been found to be satisfactory. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the entire departmental proceeding is based on the assumption that the invoices are fake. Actually, no evidence was produced in the departmental proceeding to prove that the invoices were in fact forged or any evidence is there to suggest that the petitioner was aware that the invoices were forged. Furthermore, the petitioner has not countersigned any invoice produced by the contractor. Hence, the impugned order is perverse as the same is based on surmises and conjectures and without any legal evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner in deciding the quantum of punishment by imposing punishment of reduction to the minimum of the pay scale to the post and recovery of proportionate amount of Rs.12,10,620.34 out of the financial loss caused to the government. Therefore, the order of punishment against the petitioner is grossly disproportionate.