JUDGMENT

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. - The petitioner has sought for quashing of a resolution dated 17.06.2020, whereby it has been decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him under Rule 17(2) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). By the said resolution, the Chief Enquiry Commissioner, General Administration Department has been appointed as Inquiring authority and Executive Engineer as the Presenting Officer. The allegation against the petitioner relates to the period (2008- 2011) when he was posted as Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, in relation to the works arising out of separate four agreements.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar.

3. I have heard Mr. Sourav Suman and Sanchay Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, learned Standing Counsel No.4, learned counsel, representing the State of Bihar.

4. On conjoint reading of the pleadings on record it has emerged that a complaint was received in the Department in respect of quality of hand pumps in PH Division, Gaya, based on which a Three-Man Committee was constituted by Department to inquire into the work relating to four agreements noted above. The Three-Man Inquiry Committee submitted its report on 17.09.2012 with a finding that under the agreement, the goods had to be used only if they were found in conformity with the standard specification after third party inspection. The Committee found that the hand pumps installed in PH Division, Gaya were not ISI marked and they were installed in defiance of the terms of agreement. The Inquiry Committee found the petitioner to be negligent in duty and lacking in supervision. Based on the said Inquiry report of the Three-Man Committee, an explanation was sought from the petitioner on 14.03.2013 in response to which the petitioner has submitted his reply on 02.07.2013. Nearly five years thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued vide letter No. 154 dated 15.02.2018, seeking petitioner's explanation in respect of the allegation. The petitioner did submit his reply on 05.11.2018. It is the case of the respondentsState of Bihar that a Three-Man Committee was thereafter constituted seeking technical opinion in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner and his reply to the charges. After considering the report of the Three-Man Committee, the entire matter has been reviewed by the Department and it has finally been found that the act of the petitioner constitutes negligence in duty and lack of supervision on his part. The petitioner's conduct was also found contrary to the provisions of Bihar Public works Department Code.

5. In support of the writ application, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on a Supreme Court's decision rendered in P.V. Mahadevan Vs. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636. He has argued that there has been inordinate delay of eight years in initiation of a departmental proceeding and there is no cogent explanation for such delay. He has submitted that the impugned decision to initiate disciplinary proceeding has been taken few days before the petitioner's date of retirement, i.e, 30.06.2020. He has contended that initiation of departmental proceeding in 2018 in respect of occurrence of 2008-2011 without any justifiable reason of delay is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and it, therefore, requires this Court's interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a Supreme Court's decision in case of State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakrishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 in support of his contention.

6. Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, learned Standing Counsel No.4, representing the State of Bihar, on the other hand, has argued that unless the petitioner is in a position to establish any prejudice caused to him because of delayed initiation of departmental proceeding, merely on the ground of delay, this Court exercising wri