IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.5964 of 2010
SHRI GOPAL KRISHANA, aged about 57 years, S.O Late
Bhubaneshwar Ram, resident of Village Rampur P.s.
Rampur, Dist-Buxar, presently posted as Chief Engineer
(South), Building Construction Department, Bihar,
Visheswaraya Bhawan, Belly Road, Patna.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Bihar,
Patna.
3. Principal Secretary to the Govt. Road Construction
Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. Secretary to the Govt., Road Construction Deptt. Govt. of
Bihar Patna.
5. Joint Secretary to the Govt., Road Construction Deptt. Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
6. Deputy Secretary (Vigilance) Road Construction Department
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
-----------
2 07.12.2010 I.A. No. 4665 of 2010 has been filed by the
petitioner for necessary amendments in the writ
application and for liberty to challenge the
order dated 6.4.2010 by which his second appeal
has also been dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances
mentioned in the I.A. the same is allowed.
In this writ application petitioner has
challenged the order of minor punishment of
withholding of one increment without cumulative
effect as contained in Annexure-5 as well as the
order of the Appellate Authority rejecting his
2
appeal as contained in Annexure-7 and also order
dated 06.04.2010 of the second Appellate
Authority rejecting his second appeal as
contained in Annexure-10.
From the show cause notice as contained in
Annexure-2 and the impugned order, Annexure-5 it
appears that the charge against the petitioner
was of delaying clearance of a file for granting
technical approval for construction of a check
post. Petitioner at the relevant time was Chief
Engineer in the Central Planning Organization in
the Road Construction Department. A file for
granting technical approval for construction of a
check post was received in his office on
31.1.2008. The file remained in the office for
over 3 months and finally could be cleared with
the technical approval only on 3.4.2008.The delay
in construction of check post therefore caused
revenue loss to the State Government. Hence, a
show cause was issued to the petitioner to which
he replied through Annexure-3. In his said reply,
petitioner explained the movement of the file in
his office. He stated that he was transferred
from the post w.e.f. 27.3.2008 and therefore, he
was not responsible for the delay caused in
transmitting the file to the Engineer-in-Chief
3
with technical approval thereafter. From the show
cause it appears that, after the receipt of the
file petitioner endorsed it to different persons
for examination and report and file thus kept on
moving in his Organization itself and was cleared
and sent only on 3.4.2008. Hence movement of the
file and delay in granting technical clearance to
the said proposal of construction of check post
caused in his Organization stands established.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the delay was not on the part of the
petitioner as he had endorsed the file to the
concerned section under him for scrutiny etc.
Therefore, he submits that petitioner cannot be
held responsible for the delay. He submits that
the entire process actually took only one month
and seventeen days and not three months during
the period of the petitioner.
It may be that the file was endorsed by
the petitioner to his subordinate officers for
scrutiny and report, but the fact is that the
nature of the work required as expeditious
dealing with the file. The petitioner was heading
the Organization and, therefore, he cannot be
absolved of the vicarious liability for the delay
caused, though technically file may have remained
4
on the table of some of his subordinate officers.
Being the head of the Organization it was
required from the petitioner to appreciate the
urgency in the matter and ensure that the file is
cleared immediately and sent to the concerned
authorities to proceed in the matter. By the
impugned order the petitioner has been awarded a
minor punishment of withholding of one increment
without cumulative effect. Hence, the effect of
the punishment will stand wiped out on completion
of one year as per the newly inserted Explanation
2 in Rule 14 of the 2005 Rules and petitioner
will be restored in the pay scale at the point he
will be entitled and shall also be considered for
promotion from the due date after the period of
punishment expires.
In the circumstances, considering the
facts and circumstances of this case, this Court
does not find any merit in the writ application,
and the same is dismissed.
Prakash ( J.N.Singh, J.)