Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and Mr. Prem Pujari, learned J.C. to G.A.
(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Resolution dated 6.9.2013 as contained in Resolution No. 8215 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department (Respondent No. 3), whereby and whereunder a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. It has further been prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Superintending Engineer, which is going to be held in the month of September, 2015. The petitioner is an Executive Engineer, who was appointed in the Road Construction Department in the Unified State of Bihar and pursuant to bifurcation, the petitioner was allocated the State of Jharkhand. The respondent No. 3 had issued an order dated 15.01.2013, in which an explanation was called for with respect to a letter issued by the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, whereby and whereunder chargesheet was issued against the petitioner. Reply was given by the petitioner to each of the charges and on receipt of the show cause, the same was forwarded to the State of Bihar as relevant records are with the State of Bihar. The Joint Secretary, Building Construction Department, vide letter dated 2.7.2013, addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Saharsa, in which the inquiry report was called for as in absence of the same, delay is being caused in the departmental proceeding pending in the State of Jharkhand. Vide resolution dated 6.9.2013, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, which has been challenged in the present writ application.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initiation of the departmental proceeding in terms of Memo dated 6.9.2013 was done in haste without awaiting the result of the preliminary inquiry, which is being held in the State of Bihar. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had categorically denied the charges levelled against him by giving a detailed reply and without waiting for verification of the charges levelled against him, the departmental proceeding has been initiated vide Memo dated 6.9.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State of Jharkhand without there being any document has initiated the departmental proceeding, which would be evident from the letter dated 3.6.2013, in which the State of Bihar was requested to supply the necessary documents. In such circumstances, there being no basis for initiation of the departmental proceeding in terms of Memo No. 8215 dated 6.9.2013, the same is liable to be quashed. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the allegations relate to the period in which the petitioner was posted in the State of Bihar, no departmental proceeding can be initiated by the State of Jharkhand. In this context, he has referred to the judgment in the case of State of Bihar v. Ashok Kumar Singh, reported in : 2014 (13) SCC 81.;