Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the rival parties and meticulously perused the record.

6. To fathom the depth of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the face of available factual and legal position, it is expedient to explore the facts of the case, in a nutshell, as under:-

"The petitioner was serving as Sub Engineer in Public Works Department and when he was posted in Sub Division Dindori, the W.P.Nos.7296/2017 & 6064/2017 construction of road via Rusa-Barnai-Medhakhar-Parkrisondha under the Sub Division Dindori, was given to a Contractor namely Shri Kailash Singh. The said road was laid and was duly supervised by the petitioner. For the first time, the government took a decision to engage a private agency viz. Theme Engineering Services Private Limited (Consultant Agency) for bills supervision and quality control consultantcy and the company was hired for the same in the month of December, 2012. It was incumbent upon the Contractor to insist the Consultant Agency for supervising the work and after getting its measurement with regard to work carried out by the contractor in the RFI form, the said form would be signed by the contractor, Field Engineer, the Assistant Road Engineer and the Resident Engineer of the Consultant Agency and after such formalities, the payment of bills submitted by the contractor was made. As per the averments made in the petition, after due verification of the work done by the contractor, payments were made to him. However, it was noticed that some excess payment was made to the contractor and therefore that excess amount paid to the contractor was deducted from his 4th running bill, but the contractor was not satisfied with the same and then a joint inspection was done in presence of representatives of Consultant Agency and thereafter it was found that the objection raised by the contractor was having substance and as such the amount deducted earlier was paid to the contractor on 05.05.2014 through his 7th running bill. Although a report was submitted on 01.06.2013 by the Consultant Agency pointing out deficiencies in earth-work and work of road-cutting and also alleged that excess payment was made to the contractor. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 26.08.2023 levelling one charge. The charge was proposed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to ensure W.P.Nos.7296/2017 & 6064/2017 proper standard of work by the contractor and was instrumental in excess payment to the contractor to the tune of Rs.58,44,723/- thereby caused loss to the State. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge- sheet. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was initiated, in which, two witnesses namely Shri Sumati Kumar, Divisional Accounts Officer, PWD, Dindori and Shri D.P. Tiwari, Draftsman, PWD were examined. The enquiry officer recorded a finding that the petitioner failed to prove his innocence. Copy of the enquiry report is available as Annexure-P/5. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the major penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed and amount of loss be not recovered. The petitioner submitted his reply on 23.07.2015. Thereafter, on 09.12.2015 the disciplinary authority passed the order inflicting punishment of dismissal from service. Then the petitioner preferred an appeal and when it was languishing to see its fate, he filed a writ petition bearing W.P.No.4656/2016, in which, a direction was issued for deciding the pending appeal of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the appeal was decided vide order dated 12.04.2017 affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Then this writ petition was filed and the respondent-State also filed its reply."