Sujit Narayan Prasad,J. - (1.) With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.
(2.) Both these appeals are directed against the part of common order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6314 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No. 4056 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the ex-parte enquiry report dated 02.09.2016 prepared and submitted under the joint signatures of Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 (in W.P.(S) No.6314 of 2016) so far as it relates to petitioners with respect to the construction of the road work in 2007 from "Kankhapra to Satpahari" in the District of Deoghar, whereby after more than 8-9 years of execution of the said Road work on mechanical and physical verification of the same, loss amount of Rs.8,23,728/- has been sought to be saddled on the concerned Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Contractor including the petitioners, who were posted as the Junior Engineers and have contributed to the work as such, while posted in R.E.O., Division, Deoghar.
(3.) The brief facts which are necessary to be enumerated read hereunder as :- Both the writ petitioners, appellants herein, were working in the Rural Engineering Organization by way of deputation and on bifurcation of the State, they finally have been allocated their cadre for the State of Jharkhand. While the writ petitioners/appellants were discharging their duties under the Rural Engineering Organization, a preliminary enquiry has been initiated being P.E. No. 03/09 by the Anti Corruption Bureau for conducting an enquiry against the alleged irregularity in the matter of construction of one of the roads in the district of Deoghar during the period from June, 2007 to February, 2009. The aforesaid preliminary enquiry has been concluded by submission of report on 02.09.2016 finding complicity of the writ petitioners/appellants in the matter of construction of the roads. The writ petitioners, being aggrieved with the finding recorded in the preliminary enquiry dated 02.09.2016, had approached to this Court by filing writ petitions being W.P.(S) No.6314 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No. 4056 of 2016. The learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing the counsel for the writ petitioners as also the respondent State of Jharkhand, has refused to interfere with the aforesaid preliminary enquiry on the following grounds :- "(i) Admittedly, the aforesaid writ applications have been filed for quashing the enquiry report, dated 02.09.2016, whereby some deficiencies and irregularities have been found in the said report, basing on which the respondents have moved to take coercive action by lodging F.I.R. as well as other consequential action. If on the basis of the said inquiry report, any F.I.R. is lodged , then the petitioners could have the remedy to challenge the same before the appropriate Forum. So far as the enquiry report dated 02.09.2016 is concerned, indisputably, no departmental proceeding has since been initiated basing on the impugned enquiry report and unless any disciplinary proceeding is initiated and the petitioners are subjected to any evil or civil consequences, this Court under apprehension/presumption of the petitioners ought not to interfere in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because it is too early, rather premature to tinker with the enquiry report dated 02.09.2016, unless, the rights of the petitioners being Government servants are adversely affected by any evil or civil consequences. Though, this Court would not like to interfere with the consequential action on the impugned enquiry report, but, if any future action would be taken by the respondents on the basis of the Vigilance Circular No. 1623, dated 07.08.2015, annexed as Annexure-7 to the I.A. No. 2631 of 2017, the petitioners shall be afforded reasonable opportunity, as enshrined in the aforesaid Circular, therefore, in the fitness of things without dwelling upon the nitty-gritty of the factual and legal aspects on the impugned enquiry report, interest of justice would be met, if a direction is issued to the respondents to take action in the event any action would be proposed to be taken basing on the enquiry report, the same be done after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and in accordance with law." The aforesaid order is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. ;