PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) (CAV) - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order as contained in Memo dated 06.06.2013 by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment of censure and recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,05,935/-.
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that the the Flying Squad Wing of the Water Resources Department enquired into the work of construction of ponds and wells executed during the financial year 2004-2005 under Minor Irrigation Division, Dhanbad. On enquiry, it was found that less work was done with respect to payment made to the contractors in respect of work of pond and well. Basing on such enquiry report, a show cause notice enclosing therewith memo of Charge "Prapatra Ka" was served upon the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Executive Engineer. Thereafter, the petitioner replied to the said show cause stating therein that the work in question is of the year 2002-03, which has been done by his predecessor and payment of 8398 Cubic Mt of earthwork and soft work was made by his predecessor and petitioner has only made payment of 5200 Cubic M and on technical issue petitioner submitted that in the meantime since more than three years has lapsed, hence, requested for fresh enquiry. It has been averred that agreeing with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the matter was re-enquired and it was established that work was actually completed and work recorded in the measurement book was correct and the petitioner's objection that measurement can be done only after taking into account the situation was accepted by the enquiry officer, therefore, payment made for 13598 Cubic Meter earth work was found to be correct. But, to the utter surprise and consternation, the order of punishment 06.06.2013 was served upon the petitioner, which is impugned in this case.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the impugned order has been passed without any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has been submitted that while passing the impugned order neither the contents of re-enquiry has been considered nor the same has been mentioned in the impugned order. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the so called enquiry neither enquiry officer was appointed nor any witness was examined and even after second enquiry, which has though not been considered by the respondents-authorities, no second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and straightway, impugned order has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.;