Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) IN the aforesaid writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing/setting aside the order as contained in Memo No. 2992 (S) dated 02.05.2008 (Annexure -14) passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from his services with direction to recover a sum of Rs. 45,686/ - from him and for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential service benefits.
(2.) THE factual exposition as delineated and disclosed in the writ application in a nut shell is that being selected by Bihar Public Service Commission Examination, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer vide notification issued from the office of the respondent No. 4 as contained in Memo No. 2208(S) WE dated 30.03.1999. Due to some omissions and commissions resulting in irregularities of Government work, the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 24.06.2005 (Annexure -1 to the writ application). Pursuant the said order, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 55 of Bihar and Orissa (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, as per annexure -2 to the writ application. In the said order the Inquiry Officer was also appointed. The petitioner filed his written statement of defence on 28.09.2005 explaining his stance, as per annexure -3 to the writ application. While the petitioner was continuing under suspension, the subsistence allowance as per Rule 96 of Jharkhand Service Code was not paid. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty by opining a sum of Rs. 2,91,371.23 to be recovered from the erring officers, including the petitioner as evident from annexure -4 to the writ application on conclusion of the enquiry, the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter No. 2017(S) WE dated 20.05.2006 issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his services shall not be dismissed and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 45,686/ - from the petitioner, vide annexure -6 to the writ application. In pursuance to the second show cause notice of proposed punishment the petitioner submitted his reply through registered post on 12.06.2006, vide annexure -7 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from services by Office Order No. 189 dated 05.09.2006 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Ranchi, vide annexure -8 to the writ application. Left with no option, the petitioner filed a departmental appeal dated 06.11.2006, as per annexure -9 to the writ application and vide letter No. 6979(S) dated 05.11.2007 the petitioner has been intimated by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, as per annexure -10 regarding dismissal of his appeal. Again, vide office order No. 263 dated 07.12.2006 (Annexure -11) order has been passed for treating the suspension not on duty. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2006 and after affirmation by the appellate authority, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 382 of 2008 which has been disposed of on 04.03.2008 setting aside the order of dismissal and the order of the appellate authority, as evident from annexure -12 to the writ petition and it was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 through representation submitted by the petitioner, vide annexure -13 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order and dismissed the petitioner, vide Memo No. 2992(S) dated 02.05.2008 (Annexure -14). Being aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure -14), the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.
(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit repelling the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner himself has confessed in the departmental proceeding that he had not physically verified the work site. He has also confessed that he has made entries in the measurement book and prepared bill for payment on the basis of contractor's false assurance and pressure. The act of the petitioner is a clear violation of Rule 243 and 231(d) of the Public Account Code. The action of the petitioner was also raised on 23.06.2005 in the Jharkhand Assembly through a call attention motion and adequate opportunity has been given to the petitioner before imposition of punishment. It is further submitted that punishment imposed is proper and in accordance with law.;