The disciplinary authority must record its own findings and provide an opportunity for the delinquent employee to respond if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiry officer. The delay in initiating the departmental proceeding does not vitiate the proceeding unless it causes prejudice to the employee. The punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the decision contained in letter dated 12.2.2015 (Annexure-16) by which punishment of stoppage of two increment with cumulative effect and censure has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order contained in letter dated 17.8.2015 by which the appeal preferred by him has been rejected.

Factual Matrix

3. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 as Assistant Engineer in P.W.D. Department under the administrative control of Road Construction Department, Ranchi. While the petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Building Division No.1, Ranchi, a first information report, being Vigilance Case No. 29 of 1999 was lodged against eight accused persons including the petitioner on the basis of written report of Additional Secretary dated 28.9.1999, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna regarding grave irregularities in construction work of Mines and Geology Office Building, Doranda, Ranchi. The allegations are that on 14.3.1988, the Joint Secretary, Mines & Geology Department of the then Government of Bihar, Patna sanctioned Rs.29,85,800/- for construction of the Combined Office Building. Pursuant to tender, an offer was received for a sum of Rs.20,31,519/- but the said work was allotted to the contractor for a sum of Rs.19,70,573/- in the year 1988-89. Though the work was started, but the contractor failed to complete the work and he abandoned the same at an incomplete stage in the year 1993. Taking advantage of such situation, unknown persons committed theft of bricks, fixtures, steel rods etc., as a result of which, the building collapsed. The involvement of all the Engineers who had worked at the relevant period were there. In Vigilance Case, the petitioner was ultimately charge sheeted, but thereafter he was discharged from the charge by the competent Criminal Court of law. For the same set of charge, the Department accorded sanction of prosecution, which led to initiation of departmental proceeding. Memo of charge in Prapatra-‘Ka’ dated 7.1.2011 was served to the petitioner. After a full dressed departmental proceeding and considering the reply of the petitioner, the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him vide enquiry report dated 28.7.2012. However, the Department having found the enquiry report not satisfactory, appointed another Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge afresh by order dated 4.3.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner challenged the said order dated 4.3.2013 in W.P.(S)No. 1935 of 2013. This Court vide order dated 17.1.2014 has been pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 4.3.2013 with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.6.2014. The petitioner submitted his reply on 11.11.2014 denying the charges levelled against him. Finally, the impugned punishment order dated 12.2.2015 was passed whereby stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been imposed against the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner on 15.6.2015 also came to be rejected by the appellate authority on 17.8.2015. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

Arguments advanced by learned counsel for Petitioner

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that the impugned punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority is not sustainable in view of the well settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Mishra, reported in 1998 (6) Supreme 486 : (1998) 7 SCC 84, inasmuch as, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent is a sina qua non. Learned counsel submit