Disciplinary actions against public servants must substantiate claims of misconduct with findings of pecuniary loss, failing which such actions are arbitrary and unenforceable.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order as contained in Memo No.5663 dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure-6), passed by the respondent no.3; whereby order has been issued against this petitioner that 5% of deduction will be done from the pensionable amount for the period of 5 years.

3. Brief facts of the case as it appears from the pleadings is that the petitioner has been working as Executive Engineer in the Western Kosi Bank Division, Kunauli, Birpur, of the River Kosi. During this time for the period between 15.06.2002 to 15.10.2002, the flood on the river Kosi was at its peak, and therefore, the flood relief operations were being undertaken by the Government. The Department was the responsible wing of the Government. For this purposes, one M/s. Sambhavi construction was engaged to perform flood relief work. The work was completed however, the payment could not be made for which the contractor went before High Court, and on the directions of the Hon’ble Court, one committee was constituted. The committee came to a conclusion that payment to the contractor is due, and therefore payment was released in favor of the contractor.

4. In relation to this operation, the allegations were framed against the petitioner, who at that point of time was posted as Executive Engineer in the place of incidents. The decision was taken to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner in the mean time had come to Jharkhand after bifurcation of the Cadre in the year 2004. The decision to initiate departmental proceeding was taken by the Government of Jharkhand vide resolution dated 01.07.2009, and along with this resolution one Prapatra- “KA” was also served upon the petitioner. The allegations leveled against the petitioner in the Prapatra-KA were two folds, which are as follows:-

(i) In the year 2002-03 for the purposes of flood relief work payment was made to M/s. Shambhavi construction and amount of Rs. 13.114 Lakhs was made to the contractor. For this unauthorized payment the petitioner is liable.

(ii) The petitioner delayed in forwarding form 24 proposals beyond 3 days, which is against the said norms and regulations of the Department. The form 24 proposal is a description of the work along with registration proposals, and due to the delay in forwarding the same the allegations were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 08/08/2009 denying the charges. The petitioner in his reply stating that the allegation no. 1 is unfounded, as because the payment was made on the basis of judgment of Hon’ble Court and thereafter on the basis of Departmental Committee Report. Further, the enquiry was concluded and enquiry report was submitted and in the Enquiry Report, the petitioner was exonerated of charge no.1 but however, in relation to charge no. 2 it was said that the petitioner himself has admitted that he has delayed in forwarding the form 24 proposals part 36, as is a norm in the departmental procedure. Thereafter, the respondent asked for reply to second show cause notice, dated 19/11/2017 and with the second show cause notice the copy of enquiry report was provided to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer had already disclosed his mind that he is ready to pass order of punishment against the petitioner in a very mechanical manner. The conduct of respondents has prejudicial to the petitioner, as it violates the basic principle of natural justice. The petitioner im