- (1.) THIS L.P.A. has been preferred against the order dated 22.06.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7213 of 2006, by which, learned Single Judge quashed the punishment imposed on the respondent i.e. demotion from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer and also imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/ - to be paid by the appellants to the respondent -petitioner. The respondent was working on the post of Executive Engineer and he was responsible for verifying the work done by the contractor. The charges against the respondent was that he passed the second running bill of Rs. 2,91,371/ - without any physical verification, which was in violation of Rule 234 of the Bihar Public Work Accounts Code. An enquiry was conducted against the respondent -petitioner and charge was not proved against the respondent -petitioner. But when it was found that the petitioner had made payment to the contractor without any physical verification, second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and the punishment of demotion of rank from the post of Executive Engineer to Assistant Engineer was imposed upon the petitioner.
(2.) CHALLENGING the punishment of demotion from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer, the petitioner filed the writ petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge held that there is no allegation of embezzlement, huge financial loss against the petitioner to justify reduction of rank. Learned Single Judge further held that final bill is yet to be prepared and passed and even if more payment is allegedly made in the second running bill, the same may be accounted and adjusted at the time of passing of final bill of the contractor and since there is no evidence against the petitioner justifying his demotion from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer for those offence, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of demotion from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer.
(3.) CHALLENGING the order passed in the writ petition, the appellant -State has preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant -State, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, submitted that the respondent, who was the Executive Engineer and in -charge of all the divisional work, cannot be supposed to make payment without verification of the work concerned. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that as the appellant made payment without physical verification of the work concerned, learned Single Judge was not right in passing order of making payment to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that other Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer, who have been charged along with the respondent, have been removed from the service. However, it is an admitted fact that the same was not pleaded before the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Rule 234 of Bihar Public Works Account Code read with Appendix VI, Executive Engineer has to check the measurement recorded in the measurement books on the spot by checking at least 10 per cent of the work before approving final bill and the spot checking was to be done once in a year. The learned counsel further submitted that the payment alleged to have been made is in respect of second running bill when the work was in progress and, therefore, the respondent could not be faulted for making the second running bill.;