The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for disciplinary authorities to base their findings on cogent reasons, seek explanation before inflicting major penalty, and provide a fair opportunity to the delinquent officer, in accordance with established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. By way of instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.08.2015, whereby the petitioner has been held guilty and awarded punishment of censure and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 22.12.2015, passed by respondent No. 3.

3. As per the factual matrix, petitioner is a Junior Engineer under Road Construction Department, Ranchi. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 28.06.2013, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for his alleged involvement in rate estimate and negotiation, in which the Enquiry Officer after adducing the evidence and detailed enquiry submitted his report exonerating the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, on 11.05.2015, the Disciplinary Authority issued a 2nd show-cause notice without assigning any reason for differing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, in response to which the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him. However, without considering the reply to the 2nd show-cause notice, vide order dated 28.08.2015, the respondent-authority awarded punishment of censure and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Against the said order of punishment, the petitioner preferred review which also stood dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2015.

4. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has thrown challenge to the aforesaid orders.

5. Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the punishment order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that factually petitioner cannot be slapped with the order of punishment since he had no role to play in the entire episode. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is a Junior Engineer and the work and duties of the Junior Engineer has been defined under Rule-51 A, 51 B and 51 C of P.W.D. Code, from which it can be comfortably inferred that petitioner had no role to play. It has been further argued that the petitioner, an obedient government servant, duly participated in the departmental proceeding and none of the charges were proved against him. The Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner from the charges and it was only the Disciplinary Authority, who has inflicted punishment on the ground that enquiry report should be based on evidences and not on conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel further submits that no evidence has been brought on record by the Disciplinary Authority to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid episode. Learned counsel further submits that merely by levelling allegations based on conjectures and surmises, the Disciplinary Authority has deviated from the settled principle of law that without any evidence no charges can be proved. Learned counsel further argues that it is a case of no evidence. Learned counsel further argues that the Disciplinary Authority before differing with the enquiry report ought to have noticed and sought explanation before imposing major penalty. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and fit to be quashed and set aside.

To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88.

6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, learned SC (L&C) assisted by Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner has been found guilty of the charges and as such, rightly he has been awarded punishment. Demonstrating the enquiry report, learned counsel submits that since the enquiry report was based on conjectures and surmises, the Disciplinary Authority was right in