PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) Since the relief sought for in the aforesaid writ petitions are identical, with the consent of the respective counsels, all the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment.
(2.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 23.08.2010 (in W.P.(S) No.3124/2011, W.P.(S) No.3125/2011 and W.P.(S) No.3132/2011) and 24.08.2010 (in W.P.(S) No.3126/2011) and 25.08.2010 (in W.P.(S) No.3134/2011) issued under the signature of respondent no.4, pertaining to infliction of punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect, no payment of salary for the period of suspension and for posting in the non works post for next three years and the petitioners have further prayed for quashing of the consequential order of posting dated 07.09.2010 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the petitioners have been posted as punishment on the non works post; and the petitioners have further prayed for quashing the order dated 24.12.2011 (in W.P.(S) No.3124/2011, W.P.(S) No.3126/2011, W.P.(S) No.3132/2011 and W.P.(S) No.3134/2011) and 29.02.2012 (in W.P.(S) No.3125/2011) passed by the appellate authority thereby modifying the impugned order of punishment upholding the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and no payment of salary for the period of suspension.
(3.) The short facts, as disclosed in the writ applications, is that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineer. During the year 2006-07, while they were continuing in service in Road Construction Division, they were informed to be put under suspension under Rule 3A(1) of Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 and proceeded departmentally for the alleged charges as contained therein and the order has been passed vide Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code and the headquarters of the petitioners was fixed at Road Construction Headquarters at Ranchi. In the said order, it was specified that a charge sheet shall be issued to the petitioners separately. After about one year charge sheet dated 31.10.2009 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petitions was served upon the petitioners by respondent no.3 where in Form-K it was alleged that: (a) For the works conducted during years 2006-07 departmentally, the hand receipt used for making payments of the labourers did not contain the quantity of the materials and number of labourers had also not been mentioned. (b) The vouchers did not mention the address of the labourers and mate; (c) The muster roll of all the labourers had not been prepared as per TC Form-49 and because of that the deficiencies in the muster roll could not be pointed out on time. In pursuance to the said charges, the Superintending Engineer, was appointed as inquiry officer to enquire into the charges. The petitioners submitted documentary evidence in their support before the enquiry officer and denied all the charges levelled against them and prayed for their exoneration from the said charges. The enquiry officer proceeded with the departmental enquiry against the petitioners and thereafter submitted his report on 13.03.2010 vide Annexure-4. The enquiry officer in his report gave his finding that the charges levelled against the petitioners could not be proved and the petitioners are entitled to be given benefit of the charges not being proved against them. After lapse of few months, the petitioners received letter issued by respondent no.3, whereby the petitioners were issued second show cause on the ground that the enquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer was not accepted on the ground that: (a) The copy of the hand receipt did not contain the signature of the witnesses. (b) The said hand receipt did not contain the signature of the witnesses. In the second show cause notice, petitioners were asked to reply on three proposed punishments: (i) Stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. (ii) No payment of any amount over and above subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and (iii) Post at non works post for next three years. In pursuance to the second show cause notice, petitioners submitted their reply wherein they categorically justified the addresses mentioned over the concerned vouchers, because the persons concerned belonged to small villages, mohallas and locality. The petitioners also mentioned that the signature of the witnesses had not been required as the norms because the beneficiaries had not made thumb impressions. The respondent no.4, the appointing authority, who was supposed to apply his mind upon the entire matter and reply of the petitioners, left everything to be decided by the respondent nos.2 and 3 and he upon written directions of the said respondents has yet on further extraneous grounds inflicted the same proposed punishments of petitioners for posting at non works post for further three years, stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and no payment of salary over and above the subsistence allowance as evident from Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.09.2010 the petitioners were posted in the non-works post as per Annexue-8 to the writ petition. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has been pleased to modify the punishment imposed upon the petitioners to the extent of upholding the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and no payments of salary for the period of suspension and whereas the punishment of posting on non-work post has been deleted as per the order 24.12.2011 (in W.P.(S) No.3124/2011, W.P.(S) No.3126/2011, W.P.(S) No.3132/2011 and W.P.(S) No.3134/2011) and 29.02.2012 (in W.P.(S) No.3125/2011). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner left with no efficacious and alternative remedy has approached this Court, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.;