Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the learned respondent No. 1 and Ms. R. Deka, the learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department (PWD) appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. These writ petitions involved a common question and therefore, they are taken up together for final disposal. Brief facts may be noticed at the very outset. The writ petitioners are Assistant Engineers (AE), Assistant Executive Engineers (AEE), Executive Engineers (EE) under the State PWD. In case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4755/2012, he is an Additional Chief Engineer (Additional CE).

3. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed Notifications which are all dated 16.08.2012 issued to them individually and imposing upon them the penalty of Censure with withholding of 1 (one) increment without cumulative effect except for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4755/2012 in whose case is with cumulative effect.

4. The aforesaid penalty has been assailed by the petitioners on ground amongst others that the decision to impose the penalty upon them was based upon the findings arrived at in the preliminary enquiry report submitted by Shri. K.N. Choudhury, a retired Secretary PWD prior to the issuance of the Show Cause to them. The author of the preliminary enquiry report not even being examined in the enquiry proceedings, and as such the unproved findings cannot be the ground or basis to establish the charges) against them warranting the imposition of penalty.

5. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners on different dates i.e., 05.04.2010, 14.06.2010 and 27.01.2011 to the effect that as serving as Junior Engineers (later on AE), AEE, EE and Additional CE in the PWD, Guwahati City Division-I they were responsible for preparing Plan and Estimate for construction of Bhangagarh Flyover at the cost of Rs. 38,91,89,084/-. Although the State Government in the PWD accorded administrative approval on 19.08.2005 but due to preparation of incorrect Detailed Project Report (DPR) without any sub-soil exploration, the designing and structure of the foundation part or assume safe bearing capacity required modification and consequently, a revision of the estimates, based on actual soil parameters and sanction thereof necessitated addition of additional 107/142 Nos. of piles of length 2194/3588 Rm was added with the design of pile cap which caused an additional expenditure of Rs. 575.68/799.67 lakhs. Therefore, they were charged with gross negligence to duty and lack of proper technical knowledge.

6. As for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5483/2012, the charge was only against the revised plan and estimate prepared for construction of Bhangagarh Flyover at the cost of Rs. 56,90,52,000/- lakhs since he had joined the said project midway after the foundation and major portion of the sub-structure of the said Flyover was completed. As for the other petitioners, there were 3 (three) other additional charges (4 (four) charges in all) which included lack of transparency, inefficiency, financial indiscipline and an attempt to misappropriate Government money.

7. The petitioners against the show cause notice issued to them under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (Rules of 1964) R/w Article 311 of the Constitution of India submitted their reply denying the charges leveled against them and pursuant to the enquiry made by the appointed Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioners to be responsible for causing the revised estimates. In short, the charges levelled against petitioners were found to be not proved. However, the respondent authorities through the respondent No. 3, contrary to the findings of the Enquiry Officer upon coming to the conclusion that the petitioners cannot be absolved from the charges on the facts and circumstances imposed upon them the penalty of Censure with