JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, learned counsel for the respondents-State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the punishment order dated 06.10.2015 and the consequential order of recovery dated 28.01.2019 contained in Annexure-11 series. Further prayer is made for consequential benefits.

4. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer under the Public Works Department (now Road Construction Department) in the cadre of Bihar Engineering Service. The petitioner was continuing on that post in the United State of Bihar and after bifurcation of State of Bihar, the petitioner’s cadre was allocated to the State of Jharkhand under Class-II Engineering Service of Road Construction Department. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Road Sub Division, Littipara under Road Division, Pakur. One agreement no.3 F2/2005-06 was executed between the Executive Engineer and one Contractor namely Ajay Kumar Bhagat for special repair of Dunk Sahebganj Road in different Kilometers. The work was required to be completed by 22.03.2006. In terms of agreement, the Contractor was required to produce Bitumen, apply the same in the work through proper channel of Executive Engineer from the Oil Company but from his own sources. The work order was issued in favour of the Contractor by letter dated 23.11.2005. The Indian Oil Corporation was required to supply the required quantity of Bitumen. So far quality of Bitumen is concerned, the petitioner has only counter signed the bills/measurement book prepared by the Junior Engineer based on physical observation. The petitioner was transferred and functioning as In-Charge, Executive Engineer, Zila Parishad, Pakur where one F.I.R. being RC 02(A/10-R) was registered by C.B.I. on 16.02.2010 for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act for fraudulent invoices of Bitumen in connection with the concerned contract work by the Contractor. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., however, one Executive Engineer was named in the F.I.R. The charge sheet was submitted and the name of petitioner was inserted as accused in the charge sheet. Pursuant to that, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 55 of the Civil Services C.C. & A Rules, 1930. The Enquiry Officer has submitted the report wherein charges against the petitioner has been proved. The petitioner has been asked to reply the second show cause. The petitioner has filed reply to the second show cause. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order has been passed whereby major punishment of reversion to the lowest stage of his pay scale and proportionate recovery of the so called undefined loss, which has been sought to be now effected vide consequential order of recovery. Thus, punishment order has been passed. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

5. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the departmental proceeding has not been conducted in the light of proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services C.C. & A Rules, 1930. He submits that in view of Rule 55 of the Civil Services C.C. & A Rules, 1930, the charge was required to be served in the Form and Annexures as disclosed in the said Rules. He further submits that in the enquiry proceeding not a single witness has been examined and without proving the documents etc. by way of evidence, the enquiry proceeding has been concluded. He draws the attention o