- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of notification dated 10.09.2010 and the appellate order dated 19.10.2012. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was posted as an Executive Engineer, Building Division, Chaibasa between the period July, 2005 to June, 2006. A notice inviting tender was published in the newspaper on 5.2.2006. A Charge Memo dated 7.2.2007 was served upon the petitioner on the allegations, of committing irregularities and taking commission in issuing tender, having failed to supervise and in not taking interest in the supervision of the work at Seraikella, not providing the physical verification record and remaining absent, misleading the Government with respect to construction of 'C' type houses at Seraikella, shown disinterest in coordinating with the senior departmental officers and District headquarters and not showing interest in the work as a result of which an amount of about Rs. Two crores was not utilized and was to be surrendered. An enquiry was instituted and enquiry report was submitted on 12.12.2008 in which Charge Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 were found not proved and Charge No. 1 was found partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order of Censure to be recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by order dated 19.10.2012.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating as under: 8. That it is stated and submitted that during the tenure of the petitioner as Executive Engineer, Building Division, Building Construction Department, Chaibasa some irregularities were found against the petitioner. In this context Building Construction Department, Jharkhand Ranchi had recommended to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. On this basis a departmental proceeding was initiated vide departmental resolution No. 533 dated 07.02.2007 against the petitioner. 9. That is stated and submitted that the enquiry report submitted by the conducting officer was thoroughly examined and it was found that the petitioner was guilty with respect to irregularities in notice inviting tender and it was decided at the level of competent authority to impose him "Censure" as a measure of minor penalty. Thus notification No. 5183 read with memo No. 5184 dated 10.09.2010. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority: the appeal preferred by the petitioner has already been rejected vide Departmental notification No. 7530 read with memo No. 7531 dated 19.10.2012. 10. That it is stated and submitted that with regard to the statement made at paragraph No. 1 of the writ application is concerned it is submitted that the same is prayer before the Hon'ble court hence requires no comment. 11. That it is stated and submitted that with regard to the statement made at paragraph No. 2 of the writ application is concerned it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner is denied. The punishment of "Censure" is specified as a measure of minor penalty. It is not necessary to provide an opportunity of second show cause before imposing minor penalty. 12. That it is stated and submitted that with regard to the statement made at paragraph No. 3 is concerned it is hereby submitted that the same requires no comment. 13. That it is stated and submitted that with regard to the statement made at paragraph No. 4 to 7 are concerned it is hereby submitted that the same is matter of record hence requires no comment. 14. That it is stated and submitted that with regard to the statement made at paragraph No. 8 of the writ application is concerned it is submitted that the contention of petitioner is denied. It is a fact that the petitioner has been found guilty with respect to notice inviting tender during the course of enquiry. As per NIT the tender was to be received upto 3 PM of 18.02.2006 and the bill of quantity for the purpose had to be sold from the officer of the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Chaibasa and concerned sub-divisional office. As per clause 'K' (8) of part II of Circular No. 462 dated 30.03.82 of the Chief Secretary, the sanctioned bill of quantity should have reached the officer of the Executive Engineer and the concerned sub-divisional office latest by 11.02.2006 in order to ensure proper communication to the tenderers for the purpose of proper competition among the tenderers but the petitioner in the instant case filed to ensure the said provision.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.;