ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 16-01-2025 The challenge in this petition is to the order dated

05.01.2018 (Annexure P/7) whereby and whereunder the Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of enquiry report, imposed major penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect and ban on promotion for three years from the due date to the petitioner. Also challenge is to the order dated 05.05.2020 (Annexure P/10) whereby the review application against the said order of punishment has been rejected.

2 Facts of the case are that the petitioner initially joined the service on the post of Assistant Engineer under the Chief Engineer, Birpur. In the year 2012, he was transferred and directed to join and take charge of the office of the irrigation Division, Araria as Executive Engineer and, accordingly, he took charge of the Division on 26.12.2012. He was also given additional charge of Irrigation Division, Bathanaha and Irrigation Division, Narpatganj on 08.03.2013. Before joining and taking the additional charge of above places, construction of canal siphon structure in Irrigation Division, Bathanaha was going on in which dewatering was required before the construction/excavation of earth, but there was no provision of dewatering in the agreement. The Chief Engineer, vide his letter dated 09.12.2011, gave the order to construct the siphon structure with dewatering and account of dewatering was to be maintained in the log book and payment of dewatering shall be made as per actual work done of dewatering. It is alleged that the petitioner did not supervise the work properly and got executed the dewatering work in uncontrolled manner. He also facilitated unjustified payment to the contractor against the total claimed amount. The said irregularities were pointed out in the site inspection report of the higher authorities. On the basis of that, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were also appointed. Charge memo has also been issued to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner and on the basis of enquiry report, the impugned order (Annexure P/7) has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby the Disciplinary Authority inflicted major punishment against the petitioner which has been affirmed by the Revisional Authority by order dated 05.05.2020 (Annexure P/10).

Hence, this petition.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the course of enquiry, though the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed but along with the charge memo, no list of witnesses were submitted nor supplied to the petitioner. He further submits that during the course of enquiry, none of the witnesses have been examined by the department and the Enquiry Officer, only on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner, arrived on the conclusion that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory and found the charges proved against the petitioner. Therefore, a grave violation of principles of natural justice is there. He further submits that in the second show cause also, no proposed punishment was mentioned, inspite of that, the petitioner has been inflicted with major penalty. He further submits that the Disciplinary Authority, while imposing the major penalty, also did not consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and, only on the basis of opinion and enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, punished the petitioner which has also wrongly been affirmed by the Reviewing Authority. The learned counsel has placed his reliance on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindra Nath Chourasia -Versus- The State of Bihar & Others (LPA No 462 of 2024 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 3662 of 2020. Reliance is also placed on the judgment passed by the Supreme