Mr. Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the letter dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure-5), written by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Organizer, Giridih as far as the petitioner is concerned directing the Block Development Officer, Bagodar to issue charge-sheet to the petitioner and to initiate a departmental proceeding against him and the petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents not to take any action including initiation of a departmental proceeding in pursuance to the letter dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure-2) written by the Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
(2.) Sans details, the facts, as disclosed and delineated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was appointed on 31.01.1979. It has been further averred that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner while in service nor any proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules after his superannuation from service. It has been further submitted that the petitioner superannuated from the post of the Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, Hazaribagh with effect from 31.07.2010 and after his superannuation, the petitioner was paid all his retiral dues and he was leading a peaceful retired life. It has been further averred that an enquiry was made with regard to the irregularity committed in Bagodar Block under Giridih in pursuance to a complaint made by one Sri Gautam Sagar Rana, Regional Chairman, Jharkhand Pradesh Rashtriya Janta Dal and the enquiry report dated 20.01.2011 was submitted. It has been further submitted that it will be evident from the Enquiry Report contained in Annexure-1 that the enquiry was committed with regard to the irregularities committed on construction of five works/projects which was for the financial year 2007-2008. It has been further stated that as far as the petitioner is concerned he was associated only with two works/projects out of five works/projects for which enquiry was conducted i.e. item no. 1 i.e. construction of road from Chirua border to Bengali bridge and the item no. 2 i.e. construction of Grade 1 road and bridge from Karma tarn bridge to Neetlal dhar. It has been further averred that it will be evident from the Enquiry Report contained in Annexure-1 that as far as the item no. 2 i.e. construction of Grade 1 road and bridge from Karma tarn bridge to Neetlal dhar is concerned the allegations were found to be incorrect and no work had been executed at all. It has been further submitted that it will be evident from the Enquiry Report contained in Annexure-1 that as far as the item no. 1 i.e. construction of road from Chirua border to Bengali bridge is concerned the allegations are vague and not clear and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in the said enquiry nor did he have any information of this enquiry. It has been further stated that to the utter surprise and consternation of the petitioner, a letter contained in Memo No. 6998 dated 14.08.2012 was written by the Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi directing the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Organizer, Giridih to initiate a departmental proceeding a lodge a First information Report and a Certificate case against the petitioner and others in pursuance to the report of the Chief Engineer with regard to the irregularities committed in some projects. It has been further averred that in pursuance to the letter contained in Memo No. 6998 dated 14.08.2012, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Organizer, Giridih by his letter contained in Memo No. 1778 dated 7.9.2012 informed the Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi that the First Information Reports being Bagodar (Saria) P.S. Case No. 53/10 and 234/09 has already been lodged against three persons and he sought for a clarification as to against which projects First Information Reports have to be lodged so that against one project, two First Information Reports may not be lodged. It has been further averred that the petitioner moved before this Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (S) No. 5752 of 2012, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.10.2012 with a liberty to file appropriate petition for quashing the First Information Report. It has been further stated that, however, since no First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner and as such he has not moved before any competent court of law for the redressal of his grievances. It has been further stated that in pursuance to the letter dated 14.08.2012, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Organizer, Giridih by his letter contained in Memo No. 2238 dated 5.12.2012 has directed the Block Development Officer, Bagodar to lodge First Information Report against the petitioner and others and he has further directed that after lodging of the First Information report a charge-sheet be issued to them and a departmental proceeding be initiated against them. It has been further stated that the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 1. It has been further averred that the decision in the letter contained in Memo No. 6998 dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure-2) and the letter contained in Memo No. 2238 dated 5.12.2012 (Annexure-5) are totally arbitrary, malafide and without jurisdiction. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vishal Kumar Singh, learned J.C. to S.C. (L and C) for the Respondent-State.;