HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON RAJMOULI CHAUDHARY V/S THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS CASE

PATNA, India, July 14 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on June 17:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.186 of 2022

Rajmouli Chaudhary, Son of Late Singheshwar Choudhary, Resident of Ashok Nagar, Pokharia, Ward No.37, P.S.-Town, District-Begusarai, Pin 851101. ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer-II, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Chief Engineer-IV, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Superintending Quality Management, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. ... Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate Mr. Shivam, Advocate Mr. Pushkar Prashant, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Ms. Archna Meenakshee, GP 6 Mr. Rohit Singh, AC to GP 6 Mr. Harish Singh, AC to GP 6

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

CAV JUDGMENT

Date: 17-06-2026

1. Heard Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Meenakshee, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

"(i) For quashing the order as contained in Memo No.128 dated 14.01.2021 issued under the signature of the Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondent no.3), as contained in Annexure-9 whereby and whereunder the application submitted by the petitioner for review of order of punishment as contained in Notification No.863 dated 24.04.2020 circulated under Memo No.864 dated 24.04.2020 issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondent No.2), as contained in Annexure-7, has been rejected.

(ii) For quashing Notification No.863 dated 24.04.2020 circulated vide Memo No.864 dated 24.04.2020 issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondent No.2), as contained in Annexure-7 whereby and whereunder in pursuance of a departmental proceeding conducted against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of reduction of 50% of his pension for a period of five years.

(iii) For grant of any other incidental/consequential or other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case fully enumerated hereinbelow."

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he superannuated from the post of Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Sub-Division, Hilsa on 28.2.2014. He was served with a notification on 29.11.2016 stating therein that a departmental proceeding in terms of Rule 43(b) is being initiated against him and enclosing with the same a copy of the memo of charges. The charge against the petitioner was that in construction of Telhara Livri Road to Bijokhari Road and Ekangar Sarai Road to Rasisa Road, the work of Seal Coat had not been done by the petitioner and incorrectly showing the same in the measurement book, payment had been made causing a loss of Rs.1,63,331/- and Rs.6,13,433/- to the department. The memo of charge further stated about the documentary evidence being letter no.161 dated 7.4.2014 of the Executive Engineer, Quality Management-3 i.e. the Office of the Chief Engineer-4 of the Rural Works Department, Bihar. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. An inquiry report dated 31.1.2017 was submitted recommending for exonerating the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents got the matter further inquired into by the Superintendent, Quality Control, Rural Works Department who also came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved.

5. The respondents served a second show cause notice on the petitioner on 1.2.2018 differing with the contents of the inquiry report to which the petitioner submitted his reply.

6. The respondents came out with an order dated 24.4.2020 issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, inflicting the punishment of reduction of 50% of the petitioner's pension for a period of five years.

7. The petitioner preferred a review against the order of punishment, however, the same was rejected by order dated 14.1.2021 passed by the Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar.

8. It is against the order of punishment dated 24.4.2020 passed by the Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar and the order dated 14.1.2021 of the Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar, rejecting the petitioner's review application that the instant writ application has been filed.

9. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that even after submission of the inquiry report recommending for exonerating the petitioner, the petitioner learnt that departmental authorities got the matter further inquired into by the Superintending Engineer, Quality Control Works, Rural Works Department who having examined the records, came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved. This is recorded in the concerned file on 3.7.2017 and was provided to the petitioner on an application filed by him under the Right to Information Act. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that after the reply to the second show cause was submitted by the petitioner, opinion of a technical expert i.e. the Chief Engineer-2, Rural Works Department, Bihar, was sought by the department. The Chief Engineer recorded his opinion on 5.7.2019 wherein he clearly expressed that the show cause reply and the stand taken by the petitioner were fit to be accepted. This opinion of the Chief Engineer was also provided to the petitioner on an application filed by him under the Right to Information Act.

10. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that so far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, the same was categorical that with respect to both the roads segments, the work of Seal Coat had not been done by the petitioner. In the departmental inquiry, the Conducting Officer took note of the fact that in the inquiry report submitted by the NQM (National Quality Monitor) and SQM (State Quality Monitor) pursuant to the inspections carried out by them, the work of 20 mm carpet with Seal Coat Type-A had been found to be satisfactory. It was further submitted that second show cause notice dated 1.2.2018 differing with the inquiry report was on the ground that in the inspection carried out on 28.7.2013 by the NQM (National Quality Monitor), at the relevant 500 meters point 22 mm (thickness) had been recorded as against the prescribed 26 mm. It was submitted that in the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents there was no prescribed minimum thickness of bituminous work with respect to the laying of the Seal Coat nor was it the subject matter of the memo of charge/charge sheet. It was thus submitted that the charge being of no Seal Coat work having been done by the petitioner, the same having been contradicted by the second show cause notice dated 1.2.2018 together with the recommendation of the Conducting Officer in his inquiry report as also the report/recommendation in the internal inquiry conducted by the Superintendent Engineer, Quality Control and the Chief Engineer-2, Rural Works Department, the order of punishment is not sustainable and be set aside with all consequential benefits.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.