- (1.) Since the pleadings in this case are complete, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this application is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 31.7.2008 ( annexure 3) issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Water Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby three fold punishments, i.e. recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,09,153/ -, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and censure, has been awarded to the petitioner. The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground : (i) that despite the fact that the petitioner was found not guilty of the charge in the departmental proceeding, the disciplinary authority has proceeded to award punishment without serving mandatory show cause notice to the petitioner informing the reasons for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and without assigning reasons; (ii) that the award of three fold punishment is illegal, arbitrary and highly disproportionate to the charges; (iii) that no pecuniary loss having been caused to the Government exchequer and the only charge being that the amount of advance has not been shown to have been adjusted in the books of account, the punishment awarded for recovery of the amount is totally illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law; 4 Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5 Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner was posted as an Assistant Engineering, Irrigation Department at Birpur, in the district of Supaul (Bihar). After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the petitioner was allotted Jharkhand Cadre under the Water Resources Development Department. Earlier, while the petitioner was posted as the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Division, at Birpur, he was served with a show cause notice/charge sheet on 26.6.2003 under Rule 55 of the Central Civil Services ( Control and Appeal) Rules, alleging irregularities and misconduct on the accusation that during his tenure as Asstt Engineer in the Irrigation Division, Birpur, he obtained a temporary advance of Rs. 2,18,305/80 in the year 1996 -97 for carrying out a departmental work in the Koshi Chief Canal, and the amount was not adjusted in the books of accounts. Show cause reply was submitted by the petitioner explaining that though the amount was received by him by way of advance, but since the work was to be carried out by the Junior Engineer, Sri Dineshwar Thakur, the entire amount was entrusted to Sri Thakur against a hand receipt. The work was carried out through Sri Thakur under direct supervision of the Superintending Engineer. On completion of the work in October, 1996, Sri Thakur had failed to make entries in the Measurement Books. Since the Measurement Books were not forwarded to the petitioner, as such the same could not be submitted before 31.3.1997 in the Division. It was also explained that considering the urgency of the work which was be carried out, advance amount was taken in anticipation of sanction of a realistic estimate and the execution of the work was undertaken on oral instructions of the Chief Engineer that realistic estimate would be prepared after completion of the work. The sanction was ultimately made by the Executive Engineer on 28.1.1998 after completion of the work, and the measurement was entered into the Measurement Books by Sri Dineshwar Thakur, Junior Engineer and on being forwarded, the petitioner had submitted Books and other documents to the Accounts Clerk on 11.4.1998. However, show cause reply was not found satisfactory by the concerned authorities of the Department whereupon a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the aforesaid charges. After the enquiry was concluded, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. A copy of the report was also forwarded to the petitioner on 27.9.2000 asking him to submit his show cause reply in respect of the enquiry report.
(3.) On perusal of the enquiry report, the petitioner found that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated him by recording his finding that the amount which was although obtained by the petitioner as advance, was handed over to the Junior Engineer, Sri Thakur and this fact was confirmed by the Executive Engineer as also from the Ledger of accounts. As such, the amount of advance shown as outstanding against the petitioner should have been shown only against the Junior Engineer Sri Dineshwar Thakur and not against the petitioner.;