Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has been imposed with a punishment of reduction to the lowest scale of pay of his substantive post and recovery of Rs.80,60,800/- by the impugned order (Annexure-11) dated 15th January, 2013 bearing Memo No. 445(S) issued by Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent no. 3.

2. Petitioner's appeal has also been rejected by order dated 26th July, 2013 (Annexure-13) passed by Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent no. 2, during pendency of the writ petition which has also been allowed to be challenged by the order dated 14th August, 2013 passed in I. A. No. 5995 of 2013.

3. The chronology of facts which are material for adjudication of the instant issue are being briefly narrated hereunder:

Petitioner was working in the capacity of Junior Engineer in Road Construction Department and the charges in the departmental proceedings relate to the period of his posting at Road Division, Daltonganj in 2006.

4. As a matter of fact, petitioner was proceeded in two different chargesheets, one under office order no. 17 dated 24th January, 2012 bearing Memo no. 563 issued by the respondent no.3, Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. Charges therein are also in substance similar to the charges contained at Annexure-5/1 bearing Order no. 4, Memo no. 106 (S) dated 6th January, 2012 issued by the same respondent no. 3. Under the office order no. 17 containing four charges, the allegations relate to sanction of forged vouchers of bitumen in relation to agreement no.1F2/2004-05 with M/s. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited which were entrusted with execution of specified works under Road Division, Daltonganj. It was alleged that the petitioner did not verify the invoices and Bills were prepared while 26 of the invoices were found to be forged. Petitioner did not verify the invoices and also did not check the quality of the execution of work nor empty bitumen drums were returned by the contractor. Charge nos. 2, 3 and 4 are similar to the charges nos. 2, 3 & 4 at Annexure-5/1 issued through office order no.4 dated 6th January, 2012 though in relation to a different agreement with a different contractor.

5. Four charges contained in “Prapatra (Ka)”, Chargesheet issued by the disciplinary authority, Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department enclosed to the office order no. 4 dated 6th January, 2012, Annexure-5/1 shows that they are also in relation to grave charges of irregularities and dereliction of duties on his part.

Charge No. 1 shows that petitioner while posted in Road Division, Daltonganj, did not verify the bitumen invoices submitted by the Contractor, M/s. Kalawati Construction Private Ltd., Garhwa in connection with Agreement no. 11F2/2003-04 and Bills were prepared while 61 of the invoices were found to be forged and one was found to be issued for another work. It was also alleged that without verification of the quality of the work executed despite less use of bitumen, the invoices were allowed to be made the basis for preparation of the bills for payments of the amounts to the contractor.

Charge no. 2 shows that the estimated amount of bitumen were neither used for the work nor purchased but forged invoices of claim were furnished. The quality of the work had obviously suffered.

Charge no. 3 alleges violation of Para 243 of the Bihar Public Accounts Code.

Charge no. 4 alleged that the contractor had also not returned the empty drums used for the purposes of bitumen. These were not verified by the officer which made the whole transaction suspicious.

6. The substance of the charge, as canvassed by the respondents, relate to a bitumen scam detected in execution of work in the respondent department. These were also subject matter of vigilance inquiry and were later on handed over to the CBI pursuant to the direction of the learned Div