RADHESHYAM PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 22.02.2002 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from services and further prayer has been made to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 06.02.1979 in the capacity of Junior Engineer in the undivided State of Bihar. While continuing as such, the petitioner was posted in Ranchi Water Ways Division in between 28.07.1986 to 17.09.1990 to work under a Scheme of State of Bihar known as "Kansh Reservoir Scheme" along with other engineers. But, on the complaint made by one Chhotanagpur Nagrik Kalyan Committee, which was nothing do with the project, an internal vigilance enquiry was made against the petitioner and other persons. Thereafter, the Vigilance team after considering the reply and other materials, resolved the matter. The petitioner was transferred from Ranchi to Deoghar, where he was served with an office order dated 26.11.1993, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, in which, charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 12.04.1995 for the alleged irregularities committed by him during 1988-89 in construction of "Kansh Reservoir Scheme". In the departmental proceeding, the conducting officer was appointed on 12.04.1995. It has further been averred that after enquiry, the conducting officer submitted its report wherein the petitioner along with other Junior Engineers were declared innocent and charges levelled against them were not proved. But, when the enquiry report was received by Government, the authority of the State Government took a view that the matter requires a fresh enquuiry as the enquiry officer did not take into consideration the report of Chief Engineer issued on 20.12.1993. Accordingly, the petitioner and other Junior Engineers were again called for fresh enquiry and accordingly, second enquiry report was submitted where the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges. Thereafter, second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.1999, to which, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 09.08.1999. But, the respondents-authorities without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and the documents annexed therewith passed impugned order of dismissal from services vide order dated 22.02.2002, which is impugned in this case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental proceeding was fraught with procedural irregularities. In the departmental proceeding neither the petitioner was afforded with opportunity of hearing nor the prejudicial documents was supplied to the petitioner even on repeated request, which adversely affected the case of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that during enquiry none of the witnesses were examined and petitioner was not afforded opportunity to produce his witness.