Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 250 (PAT)

Rajeshwar Ojha v. State Of Bihar

2006-03-22

BARIN GHOSH

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. In 1993, petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the State Government. In that year, a proceeding was initiated against petitioner under Rule 55 of the CCA. Rules. The charge was that petitioner has accepted a fake bank guarantee. The matter was enquired into and in 1995, a favourable enquiry report was submitted whereby and under, petitioner was exonerated. On 1st June, 1995, petitioner became entitle to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. Departmental Promotion Committee met on 7th August, 1996 when it considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and found him fit to be promoted to the said post. Accordingly, Departmental Promotion Committee made a recommendation for promoting the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer provided no Cabinet (Vigilance) Department enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Admittedly, at that stage, no Cabinet Vigilance Enquiry was pending against the petitioner. On 1st November, 1996, a notification was issued and thereby, a junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 1st July, 1995 but the promotion of the petitioner, as was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee, was not notified. A few days later, on 20th November, 1996, a show cause was issued to the petitioner under Rule 55A of the said Rules whereby and under, it was contended that the petitioner was negligent in not collecting hire charges of the machinery belonging to the Government and fet out to the contractor engaged by the petitioner for escavation work. The fact remains that the machinery were let out by another division and not by the division in which the petitioner was then working. The contract entered by the petitioner with the contractor did not provide for recovery of hire charges of the Government machinery. The division whch had let out the machinery to the contractor concerned submitted a bill for hire charges to the division where the petitioner was working after the petitioner had been transferred from that division. The petitioner gave a reply to the show cause and thereby contended that he had no knowledge that hire charges have not been recovered. On 13th January, 1998, petitioner was exonerated by the State Government in respect of the proceeding initiated under Rule 55 of the said Rules. The petitioner gave a reply to the show cause and thereby contended that he had no knowledge that hire charges have not been recovered. On 13th January, 1998, petitioner was exonerated by the State Government in respect of the proceeding initiated under Rule 55 of the said Rules. Despite that, the promotion, as was recommended, had not been accorded to the petitioner. On 31st January, 1999, the petitioner retired. Subsequent thereto, on 21st October, 2000 in the proceeding initiated under Rule 55A of the said Rules, a punishment order was issued, whereby it was directed that for five years promotion due to the petitioner from, due date thereof shall be withheld and five increments due to the petitioner shall also be withheld without cumulative effect. In CWJC No. 4410 of 2002, the petitioner challenged the said order of punishment dated 21st October, 2000. This Court, by its order dated 20th February, 2002, quashed the punishment order dated 21st October, 2000 and directed the Government to consider grant of promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date his junior was promoted within a period of three months. In such view of the matter, the case of promotion of the petitioner was once again referred to the Departmental Promotion Committee and at the same time, a Review Petition was filed before this Court seeking to review of the order of this Court dated 20th February, 2003. The Departmental Promotion Committee once again recommended grant of promotion to the petitioner with effect from 1st July, 1995 i.e. the date when junior to the petitioner was promoted subject to the out come of the Review Petition. Admittedly, the Review Petition has failed and the same has been dismissed. The State has not taken the matter higher up and accordingly, the matter stands concluded. 3. In such view of the matter, petitioner has been accorded promotion by an order dated 26th September, 2005 whereby and under, petitioner has been accorded his promotion with effect from 1st July, 1995. There is no dispute that financial benefits, as accrued to the petitioner by reason of such promotion, has also been accorded to the petitioner. 3. In such view of the matter, petitioner has been accorded promotion by an order dated 26th September, 2005 whereby and under, petitioner has been accorded his promotion with effect from 1st July, 1995. There is no dispute that financial benefits, as accrued to the petitioner by reason of such promotion, has also been accorded to the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the petitioner has received to what he was entitled, but having regard to the fact that when there was no Cabinet Vigilance Enquiry pending, it was unjust on the part of the Government not to honour the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion. Committee to grant promotion to the petitioner and instead to grant promotion to his junior. The junior to the petitioner was granted promotion by the notification dated 1st November, 1996 with effect from 1st July, 1995. As on that date no proceeding under Rule 55A was initiated against the petitioner. By 1st November, 1996, the Enquiry Report in respect of the proceeding initiated under Rule 55 had already been received and the Enquiry Report completely absolved the petitioner of the charges, which was accepted by the State Government in 1998 without any reservation. In such view of the matter, there was no just reason in denying the petitioner his promotion by the same ncliiication as was published on 1st November, 1996. In such view of the matter, for no fault on the part of the petitioner but because the superiors to the petitioner acted contrary to law, petitioner has been deprived of not only his status as the Superintending Engineer but also financial benefits accrued to him by reason of the promotion to which he became entitled to. 4. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the State Government to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the differential amount of the salary from 1 st November, 1996 until payment to be calculated on pro rata basis and interest at the same rate on the differential amount of pensionary/terminal dues of the petitioner from 1st February, 1999 until payment. Interest at the same rate calculated in the same manner should also be paid on the amount of increments deducted in terms of the punishment order dated 21st October, 2000 until payment of such increments. Interest at the same rate calculated in the same manner should also be paid on the amount of increments deducted in terms of the punishment order dated 21st October, 2000 until payment of such increments. It shall be open to the State Government to recover the amount of such interest from such person or persons, who may be found responsible for this fauxpas. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Let the above payment be made to the petitioner within three months from today. 6. The above interest has been awarded on the basis of the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Bihar & Ors. V/s. Ram Tawakya Singh & Ors., reported in P.L.J.R. 2006(1) 476. 7. This disposes of the writ petition.