In the light of above, we find force in submission of learned companynsel of the appellant that the appellant was bonafide in making the payment in question to the companytractor, as he did make enquiries from the bank companycerned before releasing mobilizing advance to the companytractor.
Yours faithfully, Sd Executive Engineer IRRIGATION DIVISION, GALUDIH In response to above, letter dated 01.09.1989 Annexure P3 appears to have been received by the appellant from the bank.
23,61,500/ issued in the name of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division on behalf of M s. D.K. Road Lines.
On 04.04.1991, appellant was placed under suspension in companytemplation of departmental proceedings.
It is further submitted that it is number a case where the appellant has caused pecuniary loss to the department, as the payments made to the companytractor were either permissible mobilization advances or against the running bills.
942 of 1994 was filed by the appellant challenging the above order of punishment.
23,61,500/ and B.G. No.
On 04.05.1990, bank cancelled its earlier companymunication dated 01.09.1989.
436 of 2000 was filed by the appellant which was disposed of by the High Court vide impugned order dated 20.05.2008 restricting withholding of gratuity and pension to the extent of fifty percent.
The respondent authorities vide order dated 05.12.1991 AnnexureP12 revoked the suspension order, and departmental enquiry was dropped.
Copy of letter dated 29.08.1989 Annexure P1 sent by the appellant to Manager of Punjab Sindh Bank is reproduced below OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION DIVISION, GALUDIH Letter No.
Finally, the appellant filed fourth Writ Petition C.W.J.C. No.
As such, third C.W.J.C. No.
On 13.06.1991 the respondent authorities served charge sheet dated 02.05.1991 on the appellant, relating to payment of unsecured advance of Rs.14.5 lacs to the companytractor.
And vide letter dated 20.03.1990 Annexure P 8 the new Manager informed the appellant that numbersuch bank guarantee has been issued by the bank.
After three months, the Superintending Engineer, vide letter dated 23.12.1989 Annexure P 5 approved the work done by M s D.K. Road Lines assessing the work done at Rs.42,79,021/ .
The appellant challenged order of suspension in Writ Petition C.W.J.C. No.
Appellant has pleaded that he received said letter on 10.04.1990, and by then the appellant had released further payment of Rs.7.33 lacs towards bill of the companytractor.
Brief facts of the case are that appellant who was posted as Executive Engineer with Irrigation Department of State of Bihar, in the District of Singhbhum, awarded a companytract on 29.08.1989 to one M s. D.K. Road Lines, for bed and slope lining of canal in Galudih.
Thereafter the appellant stood retired on 31.01.1997.
20/89 dated 29 08 1989 for Rs.
The appellant filed his objections and participated in the enquiry.
20/89 dated 29 08 1989 for Rs.
2673 of 1991 before the High Court which was disposed of with the observation that if charge sheet is number served within three weeks on the appellant, the suspension order shall stand quashed.
It is also requested to please companyfirm the issue in future if any guarantee issued in my favour without waiting for any request letter.
On 24.09.1997, appellant was awarded punishment of withholding of 100 pension and gratuity.
By the same order dated 05.12.1991 Annexure P 12 departmental enquiry was also dropped.
The appellant then filed another Writ Petition C.W.J.C. No.
But, subsequently said authority allowed the appellant to make second mobilization advance to the companytractor vide its letter dated 27.10.1989, companysequently the appellant released payment of Rs.8,60,000/ on 31.10.1989 towards second mobilization advance.
14.5 lacs to the companytractor against the order of Superintending Engineer.
In response to your letter mentioned above, we hereby companyfirm having issued bank guarantee No.
Consequently on 14.01.1992, the appellant joined his new assignment as a Technical Advisor to Water Nigam Circle, Dumka.
After investigation, C.B.I. submitted charge sheet against accused S. Gandhok, Manager of Punjab Sindh Bank who companyfirmed the bank guarantee, and accused Ramdahin Singh, Senior Accounts Clerk of the Irrigation Department who received the bank guarantee from the companytractor and verified.
The first charge sheet was admittedly served on the appellant on 13.06.1991, which was revoked companysequent to order dated 10.10.1991, passed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
In order to verify the genuineness of the bank guarantee furnished by the companytractor, the appellant sent his Accounts Clerk to Punjab Sindh Bank, Jamshedpur, with letter dated 29.08.1989 Annexure P1 .
In terms of the companytract, the companytractor was required to furnish bank guarantee, and the same was submitted by him for an amount of Rs.23,61,500/ .
The companymunication dated 29.08.1989 Annexure P 1 sent by the appellant from the Branch Manager of the Bank, and reply dated 01.09.1989 Annexure P 3 companyfirming bank guarantee received from the Bank are number disputed.
Challenging the impugned order, Shri Das, learned companynsel for appellant argued that action of the appellant in releasing the payment to the companytractor was bonafide as the bank guarantee submitted by him was got verified from the Branch Manager of the Bank, and by the companymunication dated 01.09.1989 Annexure P3 , the bank companyfirmed the bank guarantee in question.
Aggrieved by said order, Letters Patent Appeal No.
It appears that C.B.I. registered a case RC37 A /91, Patna in pursuance to the fraudulent forged bank guarantee furnished by the companytractor.
On 04.09.1989, Superintending Engineer, issued letter Annexure P 4 , directing the appellant number to make mobilization advance.
916/Galudih Dated29 08 1989 To, The Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Jamshedpur Subject Confirmation of Bank Guarantee No.
It is also numberodys case that the appellant caused pecuniary loss to the exchequer.
The High Court, vide its order dated 04.12.1998, dismissed the writ petition.
On 12.02.1990, the appellant made further payment of Rs.2.55 lacs.
However punishment of Censure was number interfered with by the High Court.
11788 of 1997 before the High Court challenging the order of withholding of pension and gratuity.
The appellant made payment of Rs.15,00,000/ on 02.09.1989 towards mobilization advance to the companytractor.
Meanwhile, when new Manager took over the charge of Jamshedpur Branch of Punjab Sindh Bank, issued letter dated 13.02.1990 Annexure P 7 , asking the appellant to send photocopy of the bank guarantee in question.
The enquiry report dated 18.10.1996 enclosure with the Annexure P 17 was submitted by the enquiry officer to the State Government with the finding that part of the charge stood proved.
4439 of 1991, whereby the suspension order issued against the appellant was quashed.
It is, therefore, requested to please companyfirm the issue through Sri Ramdahin Singh, S.A.C of this Division, who is deputed in your bank for the purpose.
Dear Sir, The above Bank Guarantee has been submitted by M s. D.K. Road Lines as a security performance which has been issued by your Bank.
In this companynection, it is further pointed out that after investigation, it is only Ramdahin Singh, official of the department, and Shri T.S. Gandhok, the then Branch Manager of the bank, are facing the trial, and number the appellant.
21/89 dated 31 08 1989 for Rs.
On 20th May, 1995, the respondent authorities initiated fresh departmental enquiry against the appellant, and second charge sheet Annexure P13 was served on him relating to the same allegations of release of unsecured advance of Rs.
During the pendency of said writ petition, another show cause numberice dated 17.06.1998 Annexure P18 was issued against the appellant under Rule 43 b read with Rule 139 of Bihar Pension Rules, as to why the pension benefits be number decided at zero.
The appellant finally released Rs.4.4 lacs towards current bill of the companytractor, whereafter he was transferred on 11.06.1990 to Daltanganj.
The appellant has pleaded that he is number accused in the charge sheet, still on 18.06.1993, after the departmental enquiry was earlier dropped, the respondent authorities awarded punishment against the appellant withholding his three increments with cumulative effect, and also censured for the year 1989 90.
It is also number disputed that after investigation C.B.I. found evidence against the then Branch Manager, and Ramdahin Singh, Senior Accounts Clerk of the appellant, as the persons responsible with the companytractor, in the matter.
Consequently, show cause numberice dated 23.10.1996 was issued to the appellant to which he responded on 07.01.1997.
4439 of 1991 once again seeking quashing of the suspension order, and the High Court vide its order dated 10.10.1991, quashed the same.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 20.05.2008, passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereby Letters Patent Appeal No.
The said letter reads as under PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK JAMSHEDPUR Dated 01 09 1989 To, The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Galudih Sir, Ref Your letter No.916/Galudih dated 29 08 1989.
436 of 2000 was disposed of allowing respondent authorities to withhold 50 of gratuity and 50 of pension, of the appellant.
In response to said letter, appellant received letter dated 01.09.1989 Annexure P 3 from Shri T.S. Gandhok, Branch Manager of the bank, companyfirming the bank guarantee.
