N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order issued by the Notification bearing No. 11, dated 29.1.1998, under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, State of Bihar whereby the petitioner has been awarded two fold punishment (i) for recovery of Rs. 1,94,580.00 with a rider that if it is not recovered during the service tenure, it may be recorded even from the retiral dues; and (ii) bar on promotion for two years.
(2.) THE petitioner 'scase is that in the year 1984 -85 an agreement L.C.B. 7 of 1984 -85 was entered into between the authorities of respondent No. 3 and one Budhu Construction Pvt. Ltd. for earth work and bed lining between 7.22 to 22.49 and 25.25 to 29.83 R.D. of Kharkai Barrage, Right Main Canal. The said work was executed by the contractor and the whole amount of provisional sanctioned rate was disbursed to the contractor by the order of Chief Engineer, communicated by letter No. 1615, dated 26.11.1988. At that time, one Ajit Prasad and thereafter Shiv Raj Singh were the Executive Engineers. By letter dated 19.9.1988 and 3.12.1988, the then Executive Engineer requested the Superintending Engineer for payment of work done as extra - item in the shape of rock cutting and blasting worth about Rs. 36.55 lakh. Petitioner 'scase is that he joined, subsequently, on 31.12.1988. According to the petitioner, even the said recommendation of the then Executive Engineer was considered by a Tender Committee under the chairmanship of M.C. Subarna, Administrator of the Project and other members including all Chief Engineers and the said committee had approved the payment of the said amount for the extra -item of work. According to the petitioner, he was not at all connected with the said work at the time of its allotment, execution or recommendation of payment for extra work. However, after payment was made for the said extra work, some controversy arose which led to an inquiry and in the said enquiry, it was concluded that the payment was contrary to the terms of the agreement and departmental rules. The State Government then decided to hold departmental inquiry against 24 officers including the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a letter No. 3041, dated 1.12.1990 asking to explain the allegations against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation by his letter No. 1294, dated 22.12.1990 denying the allegations made against him. Thereafter a charge -sheet following by Memo No. 1244, dated 23.5.1991 containing articles of charges and appointing an inquiry officer. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 19.6.1991. Again, another charge -sheet was issued after termination of the enquiry officer BN. Thakur containing the similar articles of charges and the petitioner submitted his reply on 1.9.1993. The said charge -sheets and replies have been made Annexures 4, 4/A, 5, 5/A, 6 and 6/A respectively. The Enquiry Officer completed his enquiry against A.K. Srivastava, Superintending Engineer and also the then In -charge Chief Engineer and member of the Tender Committee, which approved payment for extra work with his recommendations for exonerating them of the charges. However, the petitioner was awarded punishment on the same charges by order dated 31.5.1995. The petitioner preferred writ application against the said punishment order being C.W.JC. No. 12235 of 1995 in the Patna High Court and by order dated 31.5.1995 passed therein, the punishment order was quashed holding that the punishment was imposed without furnishing a copy of the inquiry report of the flying squad, which was relied upon by the disciplinary authority for imposing punishment. The respondents were, however, directed to furnish a copy of the said report giving liberty to the petitioner to file his reply and thereafter directed the respondent authorities to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, thereafter, he approached the authorities concerned, but neither the report of the flying squad was handed over to him nor the same was shown to the petitioner and again the impugned order dated 29.1.1988 has been arbitrarily passed awarding two fold punishments as first above mentioned. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State -respondents, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner 'sservice record is tainted and blemished; he has been inflicted punishments for different types of omissions and commissions committed by him during his service tenure. It has been stated that while the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer at Kharkai Canal Division, Jamshedpur, Adityapur in the year, 1988 -92, he had made irregular payment of Rs. 12.58 lakh to the contractor, M/s. Bhandari Construction. The said irregularities were detected and in accordance with Rule 52 -A of the Civil Services Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules, a proceeding was initiated against him. Charge -sheet was served, but the petitioner did not submit his explanation. The Government, then, examined the allegations and on the basis of the documents related to it and available on record, the charges of excess payment were found proved against the petitioner and on that basis the punishment was inflicted by the impugned letter dated 29.1.1998 (An -nexure -1). The respondents have, thus, prayed that the petitioner 'sClaim is wholly unfounded and the writ application is fit to be dismissed.
(3.) MR . B.P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Annexure -1, the order of punishment issued against the petitioner is cryptic, non - speaking, based on no reasons and the same is violative of the provisions of law as well as the clear direction given to the respondents by order dated 1.10.1996 in C.W.J.C. No. 12235 of 1995. Learned Counsel submitted that the order has been passed stating that the irregularities were scrutinized at the departmental level and it has been concluded that the petitioner had deliberately caused financial loss to the Government and has committed irregularity and misappropriation of the Government fund. But there is no discussion of evidence and material on record and no reason has been recorded for coming to the said conclusion. The impugned order is thus whimsical, perverse and illegal and is liable to be quashed.;