Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 424 (PAT)

Shivjee Singh v. State of Bihar

2008-02-27

body2008
ORDER 1. The petitioner had undertaken to make some construction in the Sahebganj Block of Muzaffarpur district. Substantially when construction was completed on basis of some complaint received, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur got an enquiry done and on being satisfied that the workmanship was not upto the mark, he directed the respondent-Executive Engineer to blacklist the petitioner and institute an FIR against the petitioner for the irregularity committed by him. The petitioner was never asked to explain his conduct nor Enquiry made in his presence. On coming to know of this high handed action, the petitioner then moved the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur protesting against the action taken by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate. The Divisional Commissioner got an enquiry conducted in the matter. The enquiry report examined the quality of work and the progress of the work and completely exonerated the petitioner, but by then an FIR was already lodged being Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 97/2007, dated 20.6.2007, and the petitioner was blacklisted. The petitioner has challenged all those actions taken adverse to him. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed justifying the action of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate but not denying the action taken by the Divisional Commissioner and the report submitted to him. 3. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 4. The genesis of the charge is the enquiry got conducted by the Collector. This enquiry has been found to be wrong by the enquiry conducted by the Divisional Commissioner. In my view, on this very short premise the action taken based on enquiry and satisfaction of the Collector cannot stand, for the satisfaction itself stands vitiated in view of subsequent enquiry, as ordered by the Divisional Commissioner of the Division. In that view of the matter, the order of blacklisting and the criminal case lodged cannot be sustained. I may also mention here that the police after investigation has also submitted final form and has not charge-sheeted the petitioner or his firm. 5. In that view of the matter, the order of blacklisting and the criminal case lodged cannot be sustained. I may also mention here that the police after investigation has also submitted final form and has not charge-sheeted the petitioner or his firm. 5. In view of the aforesaid the order by which the petitioner has been blacklisted and the order to institute the FIR are both misconceived and are set aside with consequential relief that if the work is still to complete, the Executive Engineer would permit the petitioner to complete the work expeditiously and on satisfaction of completion, clear the bills of the petitioner for the work done expeditiously. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.