Point of Law: Rule 9 of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 lays down procedure to be followed for imposing penalties upon a public servant under employment of Government of Assam.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. Phukan learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in both these writ petitions. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. D. Borah, learned Government Advocate, Assam has appeared for the respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. Both these writ petitions filed by the same petitioner arise out of more or less common factual background and are interconnected with each other. Therefore, I propose to dispose of these writ petitions by this common judgment and order.

3. The writ petitioner herein is serving as an Executive Engineer under the Public Works Department (PWD), Assam. Presently he is posted in the Nagaon Division of the PWD. Aggrieved by denial of promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and also the “sealed cover” proceeding adopted by the Selection Committee, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. The petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, is that while working as Executive Engineer, PWD, Nagoan, he was supervising the additional work of “Improvement of Nehrubali Ground including walking and Cycle Track and Development of Lakhi Prasad Goswami Open Stage at Nagaon”. Although the Public Works Department was the nodal agency for execution of the work, the project was under the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs. The City Level CIDF Implementation and Monitoring Committee (CCIMC) was monitoring the work. However, after execution of the work the Housing and Urban Affairs Department had come up with an allegation that the petitioner had prepared the estimate of the work without obtaining approval of the administrative department. Consequently, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the department of Housing and Urban Affairs whereafter, the Additional Chief Secretary of the concerned department had made a recommendation that the petitioner should not be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. Taking note of the objection raised by the department of Housing and Urban Affairs the Special Commissioner and Secretary, Public Works (Roads) Department, Dispur had served a show cause notice dated 06.04.2022 calling upon the petitioner to submit his response with regard to the allegations leveled against him. The allegations leveled against the petitioner is apparent from the Statement of Allegations which is reproduced herein below for ready reference :

“STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS

Sri Hiten Kalita, Executive Engineer (C), PWRD, Nagaon, Barhampur & Rupahihat Territorial Road Division while executing the CIDF project in Nagaon Town viz. “Improvement of Nehrubali ground including walking and cycle track & development of Lakhi Prasad Goswami open stage at Nagaon under CIDF”, an enquiry was initiated in the Department of Housing & Urban Affairs was w.r.t. anomalies in implementation of the said scheme.

He has executed the scheme based on working estimate deviating from the actual tendered items and submitted a running bill amounting to Rs.1,25,33,779/-without obtaining Administrative Approval of the concerned Administrative Department on the working estimate based on which the work has been implemented.

In the Enquiry conducted by the Department of Housing & Urban Affairs cum administrative department of the aforesaid scheme, it appears that both material change and variation of items have been incorporated in the working estimate as supplementary items wherein an amount of Rs.63,93,863.96 has been considered as non-BOQ.

It appears that Sri Kalita has prepared the working estimate amounting to Rs.1,99,89,464/- against the Administrative Approval of Rs.2,00,00,000/- restricted in the tender to Rs.1,94,91,767/- without the knowledge of the administrative department. The said working estimate found to be approved by the Addl. Chief Engineer, PWRD, Tezpur Zore based on which the execution of the work has been carried out.

He has also failed to highlight the procedural requirements for execution of works as per