S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5996 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition preferred by the appellant with prayer to quash the departmental proceeding, has been dismissed.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant while posted as Technical Secretary to the Director (Technical) at Singrauli, he was served with a show cause notice bearing No. NCL/Vig/INV/8-03/830 dated 24th November, 2003 whereby he was asked to show cause to the alleged irregularities as were set out in the said show cause notice. The appellant having received the show cause, replied to each and every irregularities and illegalities as were pointed out in different sub-clauses of clause (iv) of the show cause notice. One of the pleas taken was that he had no role to play in the matter of a tender, which gave rise to the irregularities as were alleged.

3. It appears that the competent authority being not satisfied, issued a departmental proceeding vide Memorandum No. NCL/Vig/RDA-MKG/8-03/616 dated 18th September, 2004. Eight articles of charges were framed against him and the statement of computation of misconduct in support of articles of charge framed against the appellant was also forwarded. The appellant challenged the same before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5996 of 2004 mainly on the following grounds :

(a) The charges are absolutely vague;

(b) The facts mentioned in the charge sheet do not constitute any misconduct, and

(c) The departmental proceeding is belated having initiated after five years from the date of incident;

AND, therefore, the initiation of departmental against him was bad.

4. The learned Single Judge while notice one or other judgments, as referred by the counsel for the appellant, rejected the submissions and held the proceeding initiated well within time and that the High Court cannot go into the correctness or truth of the charges at the stage of initiation of departmental proceeding.

5. Before this Court, the counsel for the appellant took similar plea. He referred to the show cause reply of appellant dated 24th December, 2003, wherein the following pleas were taken by the appellant :

In reply to para 4(i) it is submitted that the decision to go in for limited tender was taken at the level of CMD and Director (Technical) on proposal made by the CGM, highlighting the urgency of the work. Since the work had to be done prior to the onset of monsoon, it appears that the CGM was compelled to go in for limited tender and the CMD and Director (Technical), understanding the urgency of the work, agreed for the same. The allegation against the undersigned is accordingly without any basis and has no legs to stand on.

In reply to para 4(iii) it is submitted that the undersigned was never involved in calculation of the justified rate either for the work A or for item No. 1 of work B. In fact, the file relating to preparation of justified rate of work A never even came to the undersigned and hence the undersigned was not even aware about the said rate. As far as the justified rate of item No. 1 of work B, is concerned, the same was not prepared by the undersigned.

Since the undersigned was not aware of the justified rate of work A, the undersigned is not in a position to comment as to how the rate for item No. 1 of work B was different, if at all.

In reply to para 4(v) it is submitted that the allegation made in the para about opening of the tender prior to the formal constitution of the Tender Committee, it is submitted that neither I was involved in the opening of the tender nor was the undersigned a member of the Tender Committee and accordingly the undersigned is not in a position to comment as to how, and under whose authorization some executives other than the Tender Committee members opened the tender prior to the constitution of the Tender Committee. The undersigne