R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioner while was posted as Executive Engineer in -charge, Minor Distribution Division No. 7, Galudih under Chief Engineer, Swarn Rekha Multi Purpose Project, Chandil, the department in the year 1999 -2000 entered into an agreement with one M/s. Himachal Construction Company Private Limited for residual work of construction of open cut and open channel of Chandil Left Bank Canal. Under the agreement, disposal of excavated material was to be done by truck or tipper beyond 150 meter upto 1 kilometer. The payment of which was to be made only after getting lead plan approved by the Chief Engineer but the payment of Rs. 24 lacs was made without getting approval of Chief Engineer. When the matter was reported to the Government, the Government did find certain irregularities in the matter of payment of Rs. 24 lacs as the same was paid without approval of the lead plan and accordingly, it was decided to suspend all concerned officers including the petitioner in contemplation of the departmental proceeding and accordingly, the petitioner was put under suspension, vide departmental order as contained in memo No. 170 dated 22.6.2000 (Annexure 1). Subsequently, departmental proceeding was initiated whereby the petitioner was served with the charges given hereunder: (i) The petitioner made payment of a sum of Rs. 24,09,343/ - without approval of the Chief Engineer; (ii) The petitioner did not take any effort to recover a sum of Rs. 15 lacs from the contractor, namely, M/s Himachal Construction Private Limited in respect of earth work from Chandil Main Canal; (iii) Prima facie, the petitioner was responsible for giving wrong information to the Chief Engineer, Thereafter Enquiry Officer after holding enquiry extensively submitted report (Annexure 4) as contained in letter No. 184 dated 30.7.2001 and according to learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty for any of the charges, still the disciplinary authority awarded punishments of censure for the year 1999 -2000, stoppage of one increment and then disentitling the petitioner from getting subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and this was notified, vide Notification No. 22 N.C. Jay 12 -1085/2000 -616 dated 21.5.2003 (Annexure 5).
(2.) BEING aggrieved with that, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent authority but in the meantime, the petitioner on bifurcation of the State was allocated cadre of the State of Jharkhand and hence, appeal preferred was transferred to the State of Jharkhand and then the appellant authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner and consequently, affirmed the punishment awarded to the petitioner and the said order was communicated vide memo No. 990 dated 20.4.2006 (Annexure 9). Being aggrieved with the order of the disciplinary authority as contained in Annexure 5 and also by the order of the appellate authority as contained in Annexure 9, the petitioner has preferred this writ application.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry report does indicate that that the Enquiry Officer never found the charges proved and in that event, the disciplinary authority before awarding punishment should have recorded the tentative reason for such disagreement and should have given it to the delinquent for attending an opportunity to represent but it was never done by the disciplinary authority, though he was bound to issue second show cause notice to the delinquent employee communicating the grounds for such disagreement and seek his response and as such, the order passed by the disciplinary authority is illegal in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra : (1998)IILLJ809SC .;