IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1347 of 2018

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14330 of 2010

======================================================

Mahendra Prasad Singh Son of Late Harihar Prasad, Resident of Village-

Puranignj, P.S.- Kasim Bazar, District- Munger.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors

2.

The Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Commissioner, Road Construction

Department, Government of Biha

3.

The Chief Engineer, Transport South Bihar Road Construcion Department,

East Bihar Circle, Bhagalpur

4.

The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Jamui, District-

Jamui.

5.

The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Jamui, District-

Jamui.

6.

The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Lakhisarai,

District- Lakhisarai.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s

:

Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate

Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.S.D. Yadav- AAG-9

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 09-01-2023

In the instant L.P.A., appellant has assailed the

order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2018 passed in

C.W.J.C. No. 14330 of 2010.

2. The appellant while working as a Junior Engineer

was subjected to disciplinary proceeding in framing Article of

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1347 of 2018 dt.09-01-2023

2/9

charges on 28.05.2006, the appellant had submitted his

explanation by denying the alleged charges. The disciplinary

authority was not satisfied with the appellant's explanation and

proceeded to appoint Inquiring and Presenting Officer. The

Inquiring Officer submitted report on 06.02.2007, in which he

has held that charges levelled against the appellant were proved.

Based on the Inquiring Officer's report, disciplinary authority

issued second show cause notice along with the Inquiring

Officer's report on 08.03.2007. The appellant had submitted his

explanation on the Inquiring Officer's report and second show

cause notice on 08.04.2007. He has attained the age of

superannuation and retired from service on 30.09.2007. Having

regard to the fact that he has attained the age of superannuation

and retired from service, pending departmental inquiry was

converted under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules on

25.03.2008 and proceeded to issue show cause notice on

11.03.2010 to the extent of deduction of pension and

withholding of gratuity amount. The appellant had submitted his

reply on 09.04.2010, thereafter concerned authority proceeded

to impose the penalty on 02.07.2010. Feeling aggrieved and

dissatisfied with the penalty order dated 02.07.2010, the

appellant had submitted representation/memorial on 16.04.2010

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1347 of 2018 dt.09-01-2023

3/9

and it was rejected on 10.08.2010, hence the C.W.J.C. No.

14330 of 2010 was filed.

3. The learned Single Judge has rejected the appellant's

C.W.J.C., hence the present L.P.A.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in-

competent authority has passed the penalty order, namely, Chief

Engineer. The aforesaid contention has been taken note on the

previous date read with the records that the State Government

has taken decision to impose the penalty of deduction of pension

and withholding of gratuity, in other words, Chief Engineer has

only communicated the decision of the State Government,

therefore, the aforesaid contention is not tenable.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that only

one document has been cited along with the charge memo and

there is no list of witnesses. In other words, the alleged charge

has not been proved, known to the manner in l