V.N. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Sri B.K. Kanth Sr. advocate for the petitioner and J.C. to G.P-II for the State of Bihar.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification dated 21.12.2005, Annexure-1, whereunder he has been placed under suspension for the misconduct committed in the widening/strengthening of the Ara Sasaram Road as has been found by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department in its report dated 20.4.2005, Annexure-2 which was submitted to the Road Construction Department (R.C.D.) under letter No. 3863 dated 25.10.2005, Annexure- 14. The challenge is made on the ground that the suspension order is not only arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but also contrary to the provisions contained in the Bihar Government Civil Service Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. It is submitted that earlier proceeding for the same misconduct was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 56 of the Civil Services Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 vide resolution of the State Government bearing memo No. 3499 dated 8.5.2003, Annexure 4, whereundar the chargesheet alleging the same misconduct Annexure-5 was served on the petitioner along with memo of evidence in support of those charges calling upon him to file show cause reply before the enquiry officer. In response to the said direction, the petitioner filed his show cause reply dated 6.4.2004, Annexure 6 denying the charges on the basis of the evidence referred to in the chargesheet itself. The enquiry officer having examined the show cause reply with the evidence referred to in the memo of charge and having found the charges not proved submitted his enquiry report under letter No. 95 dated 4.5.2005. Annexure 7 exonerating the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. While consideration on the enquiry report dated 4.5.2005 was pending the authorities of the Road Construction Department received Cabinet (Vigilance) Department report dated 20.4.2005, Annexure 2 letter No. 3869 dated 25.10.2005, Annexure-14 holding the petitioner guilty of the allegations levelled in connection with widening/strengthening of Ara Sasaram Road. It appears in consideration of the findings recorded in the report dated 20.4.2005 received under Cabinet (Vigilance) Department letter No. 3869 dated 25.10.2005, Annexure 14 the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide notification of the Government dated 21.12.2005, Annexure 1 and thereafter under resolution of the Government bearing memo No. 3077 dated 22.3.2006, Annexure 16, the earlier enquiry report dated 4.5.2005, Annexure 7 has been rejected in consideration of the report of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department and supplementary chargesheet containing additional six charges in regard to the widening/strengthening of the same road was issued initiating fresh enquiry proceeding under Rules 14 and 17 of the Bihar Government Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 to enquire into the eight charges (two framed elarlier and six contained in the suppl. chargesheet).
3. The petitioner has assailed the notification dated 21.12.2005, Annexure 1 suspending him and the resolution dated 22.3.2006 rejecting the earlier enquiry report and initiating fresh proceedings in terms of the Rules 14 and 17 of the Bihar Civil Services Classification (Control and Appeal), 2005 serving supplementary memo of charge. According to him, the authorities did not deem it expedient to suspend him at the time when the proceedings were initially initiated under resolution dated 8.5.2003, Annexure 4 then at this belated stage it is wholly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to place him under suspension ignoring the enquiry report of the enquiry officer dated 4.5.2005 Annexure 7 only on the basis of the report of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department dated 20.4.2005 received under its letter No. 3869, dated 25.10.2005, Annexure 14. It is further submitted that the authorities of the Road Construction Department before rejecting the earlier enquiry report dated 4.5.2005 were obliged to serve the reasons of difference with the findings reached in the said report as also to hear the petitioner, otherwise exercise to reject the enquiry report dated 4.5.2005 is wholly arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice as report dated 4.5.2005 which is in favour of the petitioner is being rejected without giving him any opportunity of being heard in the matter only on the basis of the subsequent report which was also never made available to the petitioner or his comments were sought in regard to the findings reached therein. In support of the aforesaid two contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Union of India v. K.D. Pandey and Anr. reported in 2003 SCC (L & 5) 791, copy whereof has also been annexed as Annexure 8.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition. According to him, the suspension order is not required to be interfered with as the same has been passed considering the seriousness of charges which has been found to be true by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department under its report dated 20.4.2005, Annexure-2 submitted to the R.C.D. under letter No. 3869 dated 25.10.2005, Annexure 14 and in consideration of those findings, the petitioner has been placed under suspension, as such, this Court should not Interfere with the suspsension order and direct the authorities to conclude the proceedings at an early date.
5. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having perused the notification placing the petitioner under suspension dated 21.12.2005. Annexure 1 the enquire report dated 4.5.2005. Annexure 7 submitted by the enquiry officer exonerating the petitioner, the report of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department dated 20.4.2005. Annexure 2, duly forwarded to the authorities of the R.C.D. under letter No. 3869 dated 25.10.2005, Annexure 14 as also the resolution dated 22.3.2006, Annexure 16 whereunder departmental enquiry report was rejected and suppl. memo of charge was served and fresh proceeding under Rules 16 and 17 of the Bihar Government Civil Services Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 was Initiated I am of the view that the notification suspending the petitioner dated 21.12.2005, Annexure 1 is wholly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as when the proceedings in regard to the misconduct in the widening/strengthening of the Ara Sasaram road was initiated vide resolution dated 8.5.2003, Annexure 4 it was not deemed expedient to place the petitioner under suspension later enquiry officer also submitted enquiry report dated 4.5.2005 Annexure 7 exonerating the petitioner of the charges and while consideration on the enquiry report remained pending ignoring the same petitioner has been placed under suspension under the impugned order only on the basis of the Cabinet (vigilance) Department report dated 20.4.2005, Annexure 2 received under memo dated 25.10.2005, Annexure 4. It is therefore evident that the petitioner has been placed under suspension ignoring the report of the enquiry officer dated 4.5.2005, Annexure 7 holdinging him not guilty of the charges levelled against him in connection with widening/strengthening of the Ara Sasaram Road. Suspension with reference to the ex parte report of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department is in the teeth of report of the enquiry officer and no sooner the authorities of the R.C.D. realised the contradiction between the two reports they proceeded to reject the report of the enquiry officer dated 4.5.2005, Annexure 7 submitted in favour of the petitioner without hearing him vide resolution dated 22.3.2006, Annexure 16 which action is wholly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also the Principle of Natural Justice as in opinion of this Court, before rejecting the report of the enquiry officer Annexure 7 authorities were required to have served the reasons of difference as also to have given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
6. In the circumstances, I have no option but to quash the notification dated 21.12.2005, Annexure 1 placing the petitioner under suspension as it proceeds only on the basis of the enquiry report of Cabinet (Vigilance) Department dated 20.4.2005. Annexure 2 duly forwarded to the authorities of the R.C.D. under letter No. 3869 dated 25.10.2005, Annexure 14 and Ignores the enquiry report of the enquiry officer dated 4.5.2005 Annexure 1. The petitioner however, should not take any exception to the supplementary charge sheet issued under resolution of the State Government dated 22.3.2000, Annexure-16 but the said resolution is modified to the extent that notwithstanding the rejection of the enquiry report dated 4.5.2005 under the said resolution the petitioner shall be at liberty to rely over the game before the new enquiry officer as the rejection of the said report is without hearing him and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The resolution is further modified to the extent that the proceedings shall continue in terms of Rule 55 of the Civil Services Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and not under Rules 14 and 17 of the Bihar Government Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules 2005. The petitioner is accordingly, directed to appear before the new enquiry officer appointed under resolution dated 22.3.2006. Annexure 16 within three weeks of the receipt of the certified copy of this order as also to cooperate in the early conclusion of the proceedings so that the proceeding itself be over within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the R.C.D., as the condition of Ara Sasaram Road is well known to all concerned.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.