PATNA, India, July 7 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 1:

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 14.3.2023 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss CWJC no.12132 of 2013.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that in the year 1989 while posted as Junior Engineer in the Minor Distributory Division-IX, Ghatshila Camp, Galudih, as a result of an agreement entered into, M/s Barauni Tiles was required to supply PCC tiles which the appellant was to receive. The appellant received the same, however without waiting for the quality test report of the tiles, payment was made to the contractor, causing financial loss to the Government.

3. By an order contained in Resolution no.1691 dated 17.7.1991, a decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding against the appellant under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 which was subsequently converted into a proceeding under Rule 55A of the Rules. The appellant was served with a memo of charge according to which he during his tenure had received substandard tiles for the purpose of lining of canal. The tiles supplied at the ratio 1:2.97 of cement and sand against the specified ratio of 1:2. A sum of Rs.11,73,000/ had been paid to the contractor causing loss to the State exchequer. Further charge was to the effect that the appellant was negligent and casual in his duty causing financial loss to the State. He had prepared the bill for payment to the contractor without getting the quality of the supplied tiles tested.

4. The appellant submitted his reply to the show cause notice and on consideration of the contents thereof, the respondents came out with an order of punishment dated 11.12.1999 according to which there was stoppage of promotion for a period of ten years and further order of recovery of a sum to the tune of Rs.1,46,625/.

5. The appellant moved this Court in CWJC no.1015 of 2000 against the order of punishment which was allowed vide order dated 17.2.2006, the order of punishment quashed and the respondents were directed to refund the recovered amount on the basis of the said order to the appellant forthwith. The respondents preferred an appeal (LPA no.790 of 2007) against the order allowing the writ application (CWJC no.1015 of 2000). Though the judgment passed in the writ application was not interfered with and the appeal dismissed, however it was observed that if the law permits, the State of Bihar can proceed against the concerned employee in accordance with law.

6. The respondents came out with an order dated 18.1.2011 stating therein that a decision was taken to proceed against the appellant and two others under Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. Enclosed with the said order was the chargesheet containing the charges, as stated above, to which the appellant filed his reply.

7. In the meantime, the appellant having retired from service on 31.5.2011, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was converted into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM2MDAjMjAyMyMxI04=-PSC--ak1--Wc7yOuo=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.