The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the charge alleged against the delinquent to be incorporated in the chargesheet, the duty of the disciplinary authority to mention grounds for punishment, and the need to provide the delinquent ample opportunity to respond to technical opinions before imposing punishment.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide resolution as contained in memo No. 4020(S)WE dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent No.3. Further prayer has been made for quashing the resolution as contained in memo No. 1155(S) dated 12.05.2020 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent No.4 by the order of the Hon’ble Governor, Jharkhand whereby punishment of deduction of 10% pension for a period of 10 years has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notification as contained in memo No. 2569(S) dated 26.08.2021 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent No.4 by the order of the Hon’ble Governor, Jharkhand whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer and he was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 22.06.2013 from which he retired on 31.07.2017. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide the impugned resolution dated 17.07.2017 issued under the signature of the respondent No.3, a copy of which was served to him along with chargesheet in PRAPATRA 'K' containing four charges with respect to four separate projects alleging that while he was working as the Junior Engineer, Rural Development Department, Work Division, Daltonganj, had made wrong entry in the measurement book concerning the said four projects with a view to make more payment than the actual work done by the concerned contractors. Though the list of evidence along with the chargesheet was supplied to the petitioner, he was not supplied the report of the Superintending Engineer on the basis of which the ‘Fact Sheets’ with respect to the aforesaid four projects were prepared. The petitioner filed reply to the said chargesheet and thereafter the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed vide resolution dated 17.07.2017.

3. After retirement of the petitioner, the departmental proceeding initiated against him was converted into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2000’] vide order dated 02.07.2018 issued under the signature of the respondent No.4. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report holding that the petitioner was not found guilty of the charges levelled against him. So far as charge No.1 was concerned, the Enquiry Officer stated in the report that the allegation levelled against the petitioner could not be found true in view of the inspection report submitted by State Quality Monitor (S.Q.M) wherein no question had been raised on the entire work done and the same had been found to be satisfactory.

4. It is further submitted that with regard to the allegation Nos. 2, 3 & 4, the Enquiry Officer stated that it was the responsibility of the relieving officer to detect and correct the payment, if made, to the concerned contractor in excess, at the time of final settlement. On perusal of Rules 567 & 247(b) of the Bihar Public Works Account Code, it would be evident that in case of current bill, the correction can be carried out by the subsequent Officer-in-charge within a period of 6 months, failing which, he will be responsible for the loss caused to the State. The alleged excess payment recorded in the measurement book was only in the nature of current bill and was not the final settlement of account of the contractor on completion of work.

5. It is also submitted that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not accepted by the respondent No.3 on the basis of technical opinion obtained from the Engineer-in-Chief and a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.06.2019 mentioning the proposed punishment, however, copy of the said tech