Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the purported enquiry report/order dated 24.02.2014 passed by the second departmental enquiry officer (respondent no.5) in connection with departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner dated 08.11.2010 by the respondent, Road Construction Department and for quashing of follow-up second show cause notice bearing letter dated 24.06.2014 issued under the signature of respondent no.4 and for quashing of follow up impugned order of punishment bearing notification dated 03.12.2015 (Annexure-14) issued under the signature of respondent no.3 pertaining to punishment inflicted to the petitioner.
(2.) The brief facts, as emanated from the writ application, in a nutshell is that earlier two writ applications bearing W.P.(S) No.7493 of 2013 challenging the very initiation of the departmental proceeding on the same set of charges, facts and materials to that of the parallel criminal proceeding and W.P.(S) No.2640 of 2014 has been also filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of the second enquiry officer (respondent no.5) and both the writ petitions stated to be pending for disposal. The petitioner after being selected in the cadre of Bihar Engineering Service, Class II post on 16.06.1987 joined the service and as such after bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar into State of Jharkhand, the petitioner was allocated State of Jharkhand and accordingly, he reported his joining to the Road Construction Department. The petitioner while continuing his services as Executive Engineer, Engineering Cell, Health Division, Dumka, one F.I.R being R.C. 20(A)/2009R was instituted by CBI for alleged wrongs in the matter of procurement and utilisation of bitumen under Chaibasa Road Division. Although, petitioner was not named in the F.I.R but he was roped therein on the ground that he was posted as Assistant Engineer at the relevant time and for his failure to provide assistance to the Executive Engineer, bills of the contractor prepared by the Junior Engineer was passed even without proof regarding purchase of bitumen i.e. without details of invoices. Accordingly, C.B.I asked for sanction of prosecution on 10.09.2010 against all concern including the petitioner and whereupon he was incidentally put under suspension vide notification dated 04.11.2010 by RCD, Government of Jharkhand. Thereafter, vide Sankalp dated 08.11.2010 departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner, appointing Sri Binay Kumar Choubey, IAS as enquiry/conducting officer. It is pertinent to mention that along with the memo dated 08.11.2010, Article of Charges (Prapatra-'K') together with requisition for sanction of prosecution sent by C.B.I vide dated 10.09.2010 was enclosed by way of evidence. On receipt of the Article of charges, the petitioner asked for supply of documents and statement as referred to in the calendar of evidences vide letter dated 04.12.2010, 21.10.2013 and 01.11.2013, but the same was not supplied to the petitioner. During pendency of the departmental proceeding vide office order dated 24.11.2011 enquiry was entrusted to respondent no.5. Thereafter, the petitioner was noticed to appear on 23.09.2013 which was belatedly served. However, being again noticed to appear on 23.09.2013 by respondent no.5 i.e. the second E.O, petitioner appeared on 21.10.2013 and filed detailed representation before them to ensure supply of the complete documents required for filing effective statement of defence vide Annexure- 7 to the writ application. On 10.12.2013 the presenting officer supplied only few selective documents. Thus, the petitioner filed another objection in tabular form on 06.01.2014 for supply of complete documents to enable him to defend himself as per Annexure-9 to the writ application. The petitioner also made specific request to allow him to avail the assistance of lawyer as per Rule 166 (iv) of the Board Miscellaneous Rules but the same was not acceded to. The petitioner filed protest cum interim statement of defence vide letter dated 21.01.2014 narrating the prejudice caused to him on account of non supply of all requisite documents. The respondent no.5 vide order dated 06.02.2014 concluded the proceeding and finally vide order 24.02.2014 held the petitioner guilty of alleged charges. The second show cause notice dated 24.06.2014 has been issued in the teeth of Rule 55 of the CCA Rules and the petitioner having no option vide letter dated 03.07.2014 against the second show cause notice containing purported enquiry report dated 24.02.2014 passed by second departmental enquiry officer, respondent no.5 narrating the prejudice caused to him on account of non supply of all requisite documents. During pendency of the writ application, respondent passed impugned order dated 03.12.2015 imposing the punishment vide Annexure-14 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the enquiry report/order dated 24.04.2014 by respondent no.5 and the follow up second show cause notice dated 24.06.2014 and the impugned order of punishment bearing notification dated 03.12.2015 (Annexure-14), the petitioner having no efficacious and alternative remedy, approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing has vehemently submitted that the enquiry report is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has alleged that the enquiry report has been prepared without exhibiting the documents and examination of witnesses in support of charge, and therefore, the same is vitiated in law and thereby based on no evidence. Learned senior counsel further submits that the entire proceeding is perverse since no documentary evidence has been adduced nor any witnesses have been examined thereby vitiating the entire proceeding. Learned senior counsel further submits that non supply of the relevant documents despite representation of the petitioner has caused gross prejudice to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of defence and the impugned order of punishment has been passed in undue prejudice dehors the merit of the case, therefore, the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained on any canons of law.;