SHIVAJEE SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Shahi, learned A.C. to A.A.G. for the respondent State and Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the memo no. 870 dated 16.04.2007 whereby the punishment against the petitioner has been inflicted.

(3.) The petitioner joined his service in the Water Resources Department as Assistant Engineer and in due course of time he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department. While the petitioner was posted as Chief Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department, a notice inviting tender was published for construction of a Dam commonly known as Kodai Bandh falling under Minor Irrigation Division, Giridih. It was under the constituency of the then Chief Minister of State of Jharkhand. The time for completion of that dam was fixed for one year. According to the petitioner all of a sudden the time schedule has been changed, as the construction, in question, was within the constituency of the then Chief Minister of State of Jharkhand. The authorities were directed to complete the work of that dam within a period of 2 and - 1/2 months. In this regard, the petitioner made certain correspondence with the authorities concerned and raised the concern about quality of construction in view of the time schedule which has been brought back to 2 and - 1/2 months. While the work was in progress mis-happening has happened and the said canal has breached and thereafter, enquiry was directed to be conducted upon the officials who had related to the said construction. The direction was also issued to the officials to institute F.I.R. against the concerned contractor. Thereafter, the petitioner was put under suspension and the departmental proceeding was asked to be initiated against the petitioner. The decision to initiate departmental proceeding was taken vide memo no. 2839 dated 05.09.2002 under the power conferred under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1930 and accordingly the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer who happened to be an I.A.S Officer. The Enquiry officer was directed to submit his report by 30th September, 2002. The petitioner was served with the charge sheet along with the proposal of appointment of the Enquiry Officer. After receiving charge sheet, the petitioner demanded certain documents related with the charge. According to the petitioner no such documents have been supplied to him. However the petitioner was provided with enquiry report of a flying squad team constituted by the Government.