JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State.

3. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(i) To quash/set aside the order by Notification contained in memo no. 3861(S) dated 05.09.2006, issued under the pen and signature of respondent no. 3, whereby and whereunder, the following penalties have been inflicted upon the petitioner:

(a) Removal from service.

(b) Recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,411/-

(c) Decision on the period of suspension shall be taken later on:

(i) To also quash/set aside the decision by Notification contained in memo no. 1992(S) dated 10.03.2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

(ii) To also quash/set aside the decision by Notification contained in memo no. 5477(S) dated 7.12.2006, whereby the period of suspension of the petitioner has not been treated to be on duty.

(iii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages as the petitioner is not gainfully employed anywhere after the order of removal dated 5.9.2006.

(iv) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the appellate authority while passing the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 1992(S) dated 10.03.2014 (Annexure-11) although has recorded the submissions, including the submission that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, but has not considered the points raised by the petitioner including the point of disproportionate punishment. He has also submitted that the penalty order as contained in Memo No. 3861(S) dated 05.09.2006 (Annexure-7), which was subject matter of appeal, is also challenged. He submits that the petitioner has also challenged the consequential order as contained in Memo No. 5478(S) dated 07.12.2006 (Annexure-8) relating to treating his period of suspension. He has also submitted that the disciplinary authority has also not considered the points raised by the petitioner in his second show cause notice.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to two judgments passed by this Court:

(a) Order dated 22.06.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7213/2006 (Binod Kumar Rana vs. State of Jharkhand and Others) (Annexure-12), which related to the concerned Executive Engineer who was also allegedly involved in the same transaction and faced the disciplinary proceedings, this Court found that there was no evidence against him and the punishment order was set-aside by this Court with costs.

(b) Judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4977/2008 (Binod Kumar Ravi vs. State of Jharkhand and Others) (Annexure-13) dated 21.05.2015, relating to the Junior Engineer involved in the case and who had also faced the disciplinary proceedings, this Court vide paragraph-10 of the judgment has set-aside the order of punishment dated 02.05.2008 and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority for consideration solely on the question of quantum of punishment and the respondents were directed to pass an appropriate punishment taking into consideration the alleged charges, findings of the enquiry officers, strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The learned counsel submits that in the present case, the petitioner was the Assistant Engineer and was alleged involved in the same transaction as the other two persons. He submits that the petitioner was merely the recommending officer, the entry in the measurement book was made by the Junior Engineer and the payment was made by the Executive Engineer. Admittedly, judgment in W.P. (S) No. 497