Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has been imposed with a punishment of reduction to the lowest scale of pay of his substantive post and recovery of Rs. 80,60,800/ - by the impugned order (Annexure -11) dated 15th January, 2013 bearing Memo No. 445(S) issued by Engineer -in -Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt., of Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent No. 3. Petitioner's appeal has also been rejected by order dated 26th July, 2013 (Annexure -13) passed by Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent No. 2, during pendency of the writ petition which has also been allowed to be challenged by the order dated 14th August, 2013 passed in I.A. No. 5995 of 2013.
(2.) The chronology of facts which are material for adjudication of the instant issue are being briefly narrated hereunder: - - Petitioner was working in the capacity of Junior Engineer in Road Construction Department and the charges in the departmental proceedings relate to the period of his posting at Road Division, Daltonganj in 2006.
(3.) As a matter of fact, petitioner was proceeded in two different charge -sheets, one under office order No. 17 dated 24th January, 2012 bearing Memo No. 563 issued by the respondent No. 3, Engineer -in -Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt., of Jharkhand. Charges therein are also in substance similar to the charges contained at Annexure -5/1 bearing Order No. 4, Memo No. 106(S) dated 6th January, 2012 issued by the same respondent No. 3. Under the office order No. 17 containing four charges, the allegations relate to sanction of forged vouchers of bitumen in relation to agreement No. 1F2/2004 -05 with M/s. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited which were entrusted with execution of specified works under Road Division, Daltonganj. It was alleged that the petitioner did not verify the invoices and Bills were prepared while 26 of the invoices were found to be forged. Petitioner did not verify the invoices and also did not check the quality of the execution of work nor empty bitumen drums were returned by the contractor. Charge Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are similar to the charges Nos. 2, 3 & 4 at Annexure -5/1 issued through office order No. 4 dated 6th January, 2012 though in relation to a different agreement with a different contractor.;