PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing notification dated 04.04.2013 whereby petitioner has been imposed with a punishment of reduction of pay-scale to the minimum of his post and recovery of Rs.12,10,620.34 out of the financial loss caused to the Government and further for quashing the notification dated 19.02.2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise for filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner at the time of filing of the writ application has been working as Assistant Engineer and posted as Estimating Officer, Building Construction Department, Chhotanagpur Circle, Ranchi. In compliance to the order dated 30.06.2009 passed in W.P.(PIL) No.803 of 2009, a first information report was instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Ranchi being RC 13(A)/2009 (R) for offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein preliminary enquiry was taken up for the alleged large scale irregularities committed by the Engineers of the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, contractors and other persons in the matter of purported procurement of Bitumen for construction of road. The Central Bureau of Investigation, after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner, for the following charges:- "Shri Ajay Bahadur and Sri Manish Kumar, while working in the capacity of Assistant Engineers and looking after the work of strengthening of Parwa-Garhwa Road, KM 0 to 30, being executed by Shri Mahesh Mehra and Sri Sidhnath Mehra, both Directors of M/s. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., dishonestly and fraudulently, counter signed on the measurement books and on Account Bills, in strict abuse of their official positions, in order to extend undue benefit to the contractor. They committed criminal misconduct while countersigning on them as no bitumen against the fake bitumen invoices was ever supplied by the Govt. Oil Company to the contractor. They, with criminal intent, did not ensure the submission of required nos. of bitumen invoices showing procurement of required quantity of bitumen. They committed criminal misconduct and did not ensure utilization of proper quantity of bitumen in the contractual work and rather facilitated illegal payment to the contractor, as no bitumen against the aforesaid twenty-six bitumen invoices was ever supplied by the Govt. Oil Company to the contractor. Shri Ajay Bahadur and Sri Manish Kumar, thus, in criminal conspiracy with others and in strict abuse of their official positions, allowed the use of forged documents as genuine in order to cheat the department. In the criminal case, the petitioner was released on bail by the learned Court on 06.02.2012 on depositing proportionate amount of 1/9th Share of the defalcation amount involved in the case. In the meantime, the charges were framed in the departmental proceeding against him for dereliction of duties/irregularities. By resolution dated 24.01.2012, Smt. Rajbala Verma, the then Principal Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Jharkhand, Ranchi was appointed as conducting officer. In the departmental proceeding, the Conducting Officer vide letter dated 01.02.2012 directed the petitioner to appear before the conducting officer and to submit his written reply. Pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 13.02.2012. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report vide letter dated 10.04.2012. Upon submission of the enquiry report, the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Ranchi issued a second show cause to the petitioner enclosing therein the copy of the inquiry report and in pursuance thereto the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 26.11.2012. It has been averred that thereafter, by notification dated 04.04.2013 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi under the orders of the Governor of Jharkhand, while rejecting the reply dated 26.11.2012 imposed the impugned punishment vide annexure-9 to the writ petition. Against which the petitioner submitted his appeal before His Excellency the Governor of Jharkhand, which was rejected vide notification dated 19.02.2014.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the person who was appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the matter and the disciplinary authority who imposed the impugned punishment is the same person. At every stage, therefore, a person became a judge of his own cause which is in teeth of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot survive the test of legal scrutiny as the decision making process has been vitiated beyond redemption. On the merit of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that samples of alleged Bitumen were tested by the experts in the Laboratories at Birla Institute of Technology and as per report submitted by the Birla Institute of Technology, the quality of bitumen has been found to be satisfactory. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the entire departmental proceeding is based on the assumption that the invoices are fake. Actually, no evidence was produced in the departmental proceeding to prove that the invoices were in fact forged or any evidence is there to suggest that the petitioner was aware that the invoices were forged. Furthermore, the petitioner has not countersigned any invoice produced by the contractor. Hence, the impugned order is perverse as the same is based on surmises and conjectures and without any legal evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner in deciding the quantum of punishment by imposing punishment of reduction to the minimum of the pay scale to the post and recovery of proportionate amount of Rs.12,10,620.34 out of the financial loss caused to the government. Therefore, the order of punishment against the petitioner is grossly disproportionate.;