- (1.) HEARD Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Saroj Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 19.9.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 6.10.2001 passed by the appellate authority, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner has been retired as Executive Engineer on 31.5.1997. When the petitioner was in service, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated. It appears that in respect of certain allegations, the permission to initiate the proceeding has been granted by the State Government vide order dated 12.12.1996, however, no proceeding had been initiated during the period of service. It appears that after the retirement, a sanction has been granted under regulation 351A of Civil Services Regulation on 30.8.1997 to initiate the proceeding against the petitioner, and in pursuance thereof, a charge sheet was issued by the Enquiry Officer on 8.12.1997, which is Annexure -2 to the writ petition. In the said charge sheet, on the top, the date 23.6.1997 is mentioned. It appears that the charge sheet was prepared on 23.6.1997 and when the sanction under regulation 351A was granted on 30.8.1997, the same was signed by the authority concerned on 8.12.1997. The petitioner has filed the detailed reply to the charge sheet on 15.2.1999. The Enquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report on 19.5.1999, which is Annexure -6 to the writ petition. On the receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice, which has been replied by the petitioner on 30.11.1999. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned punishment order dated 19.9.2000 and directed for the recovery of Rs.1,80,213/ - from the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has held that the charge no.1 and 2 was partly proved, but there was no allegation of financial loss. However, the charge no.3 was found to be proved and in respect of the charge no.3 it was held that there was a pecuniary loss of revenue of Rs.1,80,213/ -, which is liable to be recovered. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal, which has been dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge no.3 has not, in fact, been proved. The petitioner acted bonafidely with due diligence. The contract to Muzeebur Rahman has not been awarded, because he did not furnish 10% security/earnest money, which is the requirement under the contract. On account of his refusal to deposit 10% security, his contract has been cancelled, the further contract has been awarded to Sri Gurudutt Ram. It is not the case of the respondents that in the similar nature of contract, namely white washing etc., the contract has been awarded without taking the security of 10%. The contract has also not been awarded to Muzeebur Rahman on the ground that in past he could not complete the awarded contract. A detailed explanations have been given by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer and before the disciplinary authority, but neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority has considered the explanation in its right perspective and, therefore, the order is vitiated.;