Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Singh Raghuvanshi vs M.P. Rural Road Development Authority on 28 January, 2025
1
WP No.3487 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
WRIT PETITION No. 3487 of 2021
(AJAY SINGH RAGHUVANSHI)
Vs
(M.P.RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER)
Appearance:
(BY SHRI R.K. VERMA - SENIOIR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RAM MURTI TIWARI-
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER )
(BY SHRI VIJAYENDRA SINGH CHOUDHARY -
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
Reserved On : 15.01.2025
Pronounced On : 28.01.2025
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has called in question the legality and tenability of
charge-sheet dated 27.01.2021 issued to the petitioner by Chief Executive
Officer, M.P. Rural Road Development Authority, Bhopal alleging that the
Bridge constructed over Barbaspur Sonwara Amarnala Marg was washed
away due to excessive rain in the month of August, 2020, for which a high
level inquiry was conducted, wherein it is found that in Detailed Project
Report (DPR) prepared for construction of the project in question, erroneous
calculation of catchment area was done, as a result whereof, in the first rainy
season itself, on release of water from Sanjay Sarovar Dam, the Bridge got
WP No.3487 OF 2021
submerged, damaged and washed away for which the petitioner is also
responsible being General Manager of PIU-II, Seoni and therefore
departmental proceeding has been instituted against the petitioner.
2. Heard Shri R.K. Verma, learned senior counsel with Shri Ram Murti
Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner and Shri Vijayendra Singh Choudhary,
Advocate for respondents.
3. With the consent of the parties, arguments were heard for the purpose
of final disposal of the present petition.
4. Facts in brief, which are relevant for deciding the controversy in
question shows that the petitioner was employee of M.P. Power Transmission
Co. Ltd. and his substantive post was Executive Engineer (Civil). The
petitioner was transferred on deputation in the year 2008 and posted as
General Manager, M.P. Rural Road Development Authority. A high level
Bridge was proposed to be constructed by the M.P. R.R.D.A. PIU-II Seoni on
Banganga River Across Barbaspur Sonwara Amarnala Road in District Seoni
and for that purpose a consultancy agency was appointed who prepared a
Detailed Project Report (DPR) and after examination of the same, State
Technical Agency, Jabalpur (STA) approved the DPR and Chief General
Manager after consultation with STA granted the technical sanction on
29.01.2018 for construction of Bridge in question.
5. Revised Technical Sanction was granted on 14.05.2018, after
cancelling the earlier sanction dated 29.01.2018 and the Bridge was
constructed in furtherance of the Revised Technical Sanction dated
14.05.2018. In August, 2020 the incident of submergence and collapse of
Bridge was happened and therefore, High Power Inquiry Committee was
constituted and the committee submitted its detailed report, wherein the
committee held that the incident occurred on account of faulty Detailed
WP No.3487 OF 2021
Project Report (DPR) prepared by the consultant and supervision consultant,
which was finalized by Chief General Manager, M.P.R.R.D.A.Jabalpur upon
the recommendation of In-charge General Manager, PIU II Seoni, and
consultation with S.T.A., therefore, these officers are responsible for the
incident.
6. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.01.2021. However,
considering the fact that the petitioner was going to be superannuated on
30.01.2021, the order of suspension was stayed by the Coordinate Bench in
W.P. No.2041/2021 by order dated 29.01.2021. Charge-sheet in challenge
was served with a memo dated 27.01.2021 to the petitioner just few days prior
to his retirement, which has been challenged in the present petition on several
grounds.
7. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that the issuance of memo along with charge-sheet dated 27.01.2021 is ex
facie arbitrary, illegal and tainted with malice in law, which has been issued
just few days prior to the retirement of the petitioner. He submits that after the
incident, High Level Inquiry was conducted, wherein it was found that a
faulty DPR was prepared without considering the actual figures of catchment
area, which resulted into the damage of the Bridge. He further submits that
the petitioner was posted as General Manager in PIU-I Seoni and was given
the charge of PIU-II from 19.12.2017 to 05.05.2018. The agency was
appointed for the purpose of preparation of DPR prior to taking charge by the
petitioner. DPR was submitted before 12.11.2017 and a joint inspection by
Chief General Manager and State Technical Agency, Jabalpur was carried out
on 12.11.2017, whereas the petitioner was posted on 19.12.2017, therefore,
the petitioner played no role in preparation of DPR. The technical sanction
issued by Chief General Manager dated 29.01.2018 on the basis of said DPR
WP No.3487 OF 2021
was cancelled on 14.05.2018 and on the same day, Revised Technical
Sanction was granted and on the basis of Revised Technical Sanction, the
Bridge was constructed. The petitioner was relieved from the charge of
General Manager PIU-II Seoni on 05.05.2018 and much after 05.05.2018, the
Revised Technical Sanction was granted and therefore, the petitioner had no
role in issuance of Revised Technical Sanction and in construction of Bridge.
8. Learned senior counsel has pointed out from the documents that in
DPR the highest flood level is considered at RL 482.554 and allowing for
water clearance and height of super structure, the formation level was kept at
RL 485.519 whereas on 28 and 29/August 2020 due to heavy rainfall in the
catchment area of the Bridge and sudden release of 220000 cusecs flood
discharge from Sanjay Sarovar (Bhimgarh) Dam situated at 20 kms. upstream
of the Bridge, the flood level reached to RL 487.23 mt., which was 2.0 mt.
higher than the formation level of the bridge and velocity raised to 7.06
mts/second against designed velocity of 4.9 mts/second considered in DPR,
consequently when High Level Bridge get submerged, it was washed out and
damaged. He submits that petitioner is not responsible either for preparation
of DPR or for construction of the bridge and therefore, the issuance of charge-
sheet to the petitioner amounts to colourable exercise of power and malice in
law and consequently liable to be quashed.
9. Learned senior counsel further submits that the allegations against the
petitioner is that the petitioner signed the DPR on 07.01.2018 as General
Manager PIU-II, Seoni though he played no role in preparation of the DPR
and at the most, the same may be treated as negligence on the part of
petitioner, but a negligence may not constitute a misconduct for the purposes
of punishment and therefore, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
WP No.3487 OF 2021
10. He relied on the judgment of Apex Court delivered in the matter of
Inspector Premchand vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, (2007)
4 SCC 566, wherein the Apex Court has held that the negligence is not
misconduct. He further relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this
Court delivered in the matter of S.D. Bhind vs. Union of India and others in
W.P. No.677/2007 on 12.11.2014, wherein after considering the evidence
available on record the Division Bench has held that any action of public
servant, which may fall in the category of carelessness or negligence does not
constitute any misconduct and therefore, the employee is not liable for the
punishment.
11. Learned senior counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner has been
served with the charge sheet in order to harass and the petitioner is not liable
for the alleged incident, therefore, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. He
further submits that DPR was considered by STA and technical sanction was
granted by Chief General Manager with the consult of STA on 29.01.2018,
which was cancelled and revised technical sanction was granted on
14.05.2018 on the basis of which the construction was carried out and
therefore, the petitioner can not be held liable for any action.
12. Per contra, Shri Vijayendra Singh Chouhdary, Advocate appearing on
behalf of respondents submits that the petitioner was posted as General
Manager PIU-II Seoni on 19.12.2017, and thereafter the petitioner examined
the DPR signed and submitted the DPR before STA as General Manager with
an undertaking that he checked the DPR and therefore, the petitioner has
played the role in preparation of DPR and approval of DPR by certifying the
fact that he has checked the DPR after receipt of the same. He further submits
that issuance of charge-sheet is not a punishment and it is settled law that
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Courts should not
WP No.3487 OF 2021
interfere in the departmental enquiry by making any roving enquiry in the
matter. He relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Union of
India and Another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28,
Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar
Singh and others, JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs.
Mohd. Ghulam Ghouses and another, AIR 2004 SC 1467, ULagappa and
others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others, 2001 (10) SCC
639, wherein the Apex Court has held that no writ lies against the charge-
sheet or show cause notice and generally a writ petition is not maintainable
against charge-sheet, as issuance of same does not give rise to a cause of
action on account of the fact that it does not adversely affect the rights of a
party except in cases where the charge-sheet has been issued by an authority
not competent to do so. He further submits that the Division Bench of this
Court in the matter of State of M.P. and others vs. Ashok Sharma (Dr.)
reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ 2006 has held that correctness of allegations of
Departmental Enquiry cannot be determined by making a roving enquiry in
the matter of suspension and therefore, whether the charges levelled against
the petitioner and other persons are correct or not, whether any misconduct is
made out or not are certainly subject matter of the Departmental Enquiry. He
submits that the petitioner may participate in the departmental enquiry and put
up his defence before the Inquiry Officer. He prays for dismissal of the
petition.
13. Considered the arguments advanced by the rival parties and after
going through the record, few facts are not in dispute that when the agency for
preparation of DPR was appointed, the petitioner was not posted and
therefore, neither the consultant agency nor the supervision consultant was
appointed by the petitioner. So far as the preparation of DPR is concerned, the
WP No.3487 OF 2021
petitioner had no role and the joint inspection by Chief General Manager with
STA was also carried out in the absence of the petitioner on 12.11.2017,
whereas the petitioner was posted as In-charge of General Manager PIU-II,
Seoni on 19.12.2017. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of DPR and
after consultation with STA, originally Chief General Manager granted
technical sanction on 29.01.2018 and on that day the petitioner was holding
the charge of General Manager PIU-II Seoni. The technical sanction granted
on 29.01.2018 was remained in force till the petitioner handed over the charge
to Shri J.P. Mehra on 05.05.2018 and thereafter, the same was cancelled by
Chief General Manager on 14.05.2018 and revised technical sanction was
granted on 14.05.2018 on the basis of which the construction was carried out.
On 14.05.2018, the petitioner was not posted as General Manager PIU-II
Seoni.
14. From the perusal of the report of High Level Inspection Committee,
the reason for the incident was faulty DPR. After detailed study of DPR, side
inspection and discussion with field officer, the opinion of the High Level
Committee was as under:-
"The main reason of failure of bridge is heavy rainfall in
the whole catchment area of bridge catchment on 28.08.20 &
29.08.20 and sudden release of 220000 cusecs (6244.66 cumecs)
flood discharge from Sanjay Sarovar (Bhimgarh) dam situated at
20 km Upstream of this bridge. Due to this fact water level at
bridge location increased with extensive velocity and reached to
RL 487.23 m i.e. about 2.0 meter above formation level of bridge
(RL 485 519 m). Due to increase of HFL from RL 482.544 m to
487.23 m, this high level bridge is heavily damaged (7 span of T-
beam girder & deck slab and 4 nos. piers completely damaged).
In addition to above mentioned points, some major
discrepancies are also observed in DPR preparation. ECS DPR
consultant failed to mention, the details of already constructed
major Sanjay Sarovar by water Resources Department on the 20
km upstream of bridge. They are not considering the flood
discharge from dam in the design of bridge.
In Revised DPR submitted by DPR Consultant,
provision of bracket are shown in GAD, but details of bracket &
WP No.3487 OF 2021
their reinforcement details are not shown in reinforcement
drawings.
From discussion at site with Team Leader SQC, shows
that supervision consultant has not exercised review of DPR before
start the construction of work, During visit, Team Leader
Supervision & Quality control Consultant informed that due to high
level bridge, construction of Bracket at top of Pier as shown in
GAD are not constructed. At the time of Inspection, it was found
that Bracket reinforcement are provided in most of the piers but
concrete work in Brackets not done. This shows that regarding
Construction of bracket in the bridge, supervision consultant was in
confusion. It is not clear that after providing reinforcement of
bracket, why concrete work in Bracket not executed and
completion certificate of Incomplete work of bridge was issued by
Supervision consultant & General Manager PIU-2 Seoni."
15. It is apposite that when the DPR was prepared petitioner had not
played any role. However, when the DPR was accepted the petitioner has
signed the same as General Manager on 07.01.2018 confirming the fact that
DPR was checked by him. As per the High Level Committee, Topo Sheet was
available and from the study of Topo Sheet, the officer who checked the DPR
must be aware of that the DPR consultant has not discussed regarding already
constructed major dam on same stream/river about 20 kms upstream of
proposed Bridge. Whereas at the time of preparation of DPR and calculation
of the catchment area, the fact of availability of already constructed major
dam was not considered. The petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet in the
present petition and the law is settled that the correctness of the allegation
cannot be examined at this stage.
16. The petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that the
petitioner did not play any role in preparation of DPR, acceptance of DPR,
issuance of technical sanction etc. However, it appears that the petitioner has
signed the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna check list as General Manager,
PIU-II, Seoni prepared for the purpose of construction of proposed bridge
across Banganga River Barbaspur Harduli Sonwara Amnanala to Sunwara
WP No.3487 OF 2021
Seoni, which contains every details and on the basis of said check list filled
up by PIU, taking into consideration the catchment area, high flood level etc.
the STA submitted its report and therefore, prima facie it is not a case wherein
the petitioner has not played any role at all. The petitioner was at fault or not
and the conduct of petitioner signing the report amounts to misconduct or
mere negligence, it cannot be decided at this stage and the same can be
considered after inquiry.
17. After examination it reveals that, revised DPR was submitted on
30.04.2018 and same was signed by the petitioner after checking the same in
the capacity of General Manager, PIU-II, Seoni, on the basis of which revised
technical sanction was granted, therefore, the arguments advanced by the
petitioner that the Bridge was constructed as per revised technical sanction,
granted on 14.05.2018 and consequently the petitioner is not responsible as he
worked only up to 05.05.2018 are not helpful to the petitioner. Infact, the
construction was raised as per the DPR, which was checked and signed by the
petitioner as General Manager PIU-II Seoni.
18. Consequently, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere in the
departmental enquiry and the proceedings. At the same time, this Court
refrain itself from recording any findings on the merits of the case as the
inquiry is still pending and the Inquiry Officer will consider the same on the
basis of the available evidence.
19. In view of above, it is not a fit case for interfering in the departmental
proceedings at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet and memo and
consequently, the petition fails and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VINAY SARAF)
MOHD Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI
irfan JUDGE
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
IRFAN
PRADESH,
2.5.4.20=9e52cc092beccf97fb4519f021aa0efe6
55497f8e69e9c7c35b1dbc4f77fcd7e,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=1558F76970FA278F70AC9D725
SIDDIQUI
54B919645816E40E440A18ED2985A32F759DC
97, cn=MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI
Date: 2025.01.28 17:22:24 +05'30'
