The authority has the power to initiate fresh departmental proceedings, and the court cannot sit as an appellate authority but can only review the decision-making process.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. The present writ application has been preferred against the order dated 20.03.2013 bearing Memo No.374 passed by Engineer-In-Chief (Central), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna as contained in Annexure-17 whereby punishment of stoppage of 5% pension has been imposed upon the petitioner in a departmental proceeding concluded under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

3. At the relevant point of time in the year 1989, the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in Minor Distributory Division-IX, Ghatshila Camp, Galudih. An agreement was entered with six different firms (one of them is M/s Barauni Tiles) for supply of PCC tiles. The petitioner was directed to receive tiles from M/s Barauni Tiles. He received sub-standard tiles from the contractor inasmuch the said tiles were not as per specification stipulated under the contract.

4. The petitioner entered the bill against the supply of the said tiles in the measurement book without waiting for the quality test report of those tiles. On the basis of entry made by the petitioner in the measurement book payment was made to the contractor. As such, the petitioner caused a huge financial loss to the Government and accordingly, vide Resolution No. 1691 dated 17.07.1991, the Water Resources Department took a decision to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The proceeding was, later one, converted into Rule 55A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules on 02.11.1992.

5. The memo of charge was served upon the petitioner, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner during his tenure received the sub-standard tiles supplied by the contractor for the purpose of lining of the canal. He received the tiles supplied by the contractor having 1:2.97 ratio of cement and sand instead of specified ratio of cement and sand of 1:2. A sum of Rs. 11,73,000/-was paid to the contractor against the substandard tiles which caused loss to the State exchequer to the aforesaid extent.

6. The second charge was that during his tenure, the petitioner was negligent and casual in his duty which caused financial loss to the State revenue which is punishable under Clause 265 of the Bihar Financial Rule and Clause 243 of the Bihar Public Works Accounts Code. The petitioner in order to provide financial gain to the contractor did not get quality control tested of the material supplied as per the agreement and without quality control test prepared the bill, facilitating the payment of amount to the contractor.

7. The petitioner filed his reply to the show-cause on 28.11.1992 and upon consideration of the same the petitioner was awarded a punishment vide Annexure-9 whereby the promotion for the next ten years was stopped and a sum of Rs. 1,46,625/- was ordered to be recovered from him.

8. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 1015/2000 before this Court. The said writ application was disposed of by order dated 17.02.2006 whereby the order of punishment was quashed and a direction was issued to refund the recovered amount.

9. The Respondents preferred an LPA No. 790/2007 against the said order. The LPA was dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2010 with liberty to the State that “if the law permits the appellants can proceed against the concerned employee in accordance with law”. The Respondent No. 5, Engineer-in-Chief decided to proceed against the petitioner under Rule 17 of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 vide order dated 18.01.2011 contained in Memo No. 78 (Annexure-13). During pendency of the said proceeding the petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2011 and accordingly, the proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules vide departmental order contained in Memo No. 860 dated 13.07.2011.

10. The memo of charge having the aforesaid charges as stated hereinab