S.B. SINHA, J.:- This application is directed against an order dated 16th October, 1992 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from services. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. On 25th July, 1984 the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. Thereafter a resolution was adopted by the State in terms whereof a departmental proceeding was initiated as against the petitioner and one Ram Naresh Shukla, Executing Engineer, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. 4. Thereafter six charges were levelled/communicated to the petitioner, which are as follows: - "Charge No.1 That though 422 matric tones of cement was transported but only 264 matric tones of cement has been found in the account and remaining 158 matric tones of cement is not available. The petitioner has misappropriated aforesaid 158 matric tones of cement and has given false information relating to supply of 158 matric tones of cement. Charge No.2. That 158 matric tones as purported to have been transported by the petitioner for which supplementary account of carriage has been submitted confirms the allegation made in Charge No.1. Charge No.3. That out of 4000 bags of cement, which were transferred in favour-of Md. Nizamuddin, Junior Engineer, Ghosi, delivery of 1200 bags of cement was made by the petitioner, the remaining 2800 bages of cement were kept in the custody of the petitioner. Inspite of request made by the Junior Engineer, Ghosi, remaining 2800 bag of cement has not been handed over by the petitioner though directions were given by the Executive Engineer and Sub-Divisional Officer. That petitioner has produced hand receipts relating to 4000 bags of cement but has stated that Md. Nazamuddin carried 3960 bags of cement. This shows that the petitioner had given a wrong statement and thereby misappropriated 2800 bags of cement. The same may be a dispute between the petitioner and Md. Nizamuddin but the Government incurred loss of 139 matric tones of cement for which the petitioner is also guilty. Charge No.4 With regard to supply/carriage of 1300 matric tones of cement, certain direction was given by the Sub-divisional Officer but the petitioner disobeyed such direction and concealed the matter relating to supply of cement from Executive Engineer which shows mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner. Charge No.4 With regard to supply/carriage of 1300 matric tones of cement, certain direction was given by the Sub-divisional Officer but the petitioner disobeyed such direction and concealed the matter relating to supply of cement from Executive Engineer which shows mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner. Charge No.5 That the god own of the petitioner was inspected by the Estimating Officer and only 163 bags of cement were found available but all such 163 bags of cement were found to be set one. Out of 163 bags of cement 40 bags of cement were shown standing against the account of Ghosi Sub-division and remaining 123 bags of cement that of the account of the petitioner. It is not clear as to how 40 bags of cement remained in the custody of the petitioner when no hand receipts were given with regard to 4000 bags of cement. The same was in contravention of the PWD Code and the setting of cement caused financial loss to the Government for which the petitioner is guilty. Charge No.6. That from the report of the Superintending Engineer relating to supplementary account sent for February, 1983/ March, 1983, suspicion has been made relating to allotment of cement to the contractors by the petitioner." 5. According to the petitioner alongwith the said charges the list of documents as also a list of witnesses upon which the department intended to rely upon were not furnished to the petitioner and thus be by a letter dated 8th December, 1984 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, required the Inquiry Officer to furnish him the of evidences list of evidence 6. According to the petitioner despite the said letter no intimation was given by the respondents. He also sent reminders by the terms of his letters dated 12th January, 1985, 25th March, 1985 and 30th July, 1985. 7. It has further been stated that on 25th November, 1985, the petitioner sent his show cause under registered cover. The said show cause reply is contained in Annexure 9 and the registration receipt granted by the postal department is contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application. 8. It has been stated that thereafter the order of suspension was revoked on 17th February, 1986 (Annexure 11). The said show cause reply is contained in Annexure 9 and the registration receipt granted by the postal department is contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application. 8. It has been stated that thereafter the order of suspension was revoked on 17th February, 1986 (Annexure 11). The petitioner contends that however, thereafter he did not receive any intimation from the Enquiry Officer with regard to the date fixed for holding enquiry against him. 9. It has further been stated that the proposal for termination of the services of the petitioner was sent to the Bihar Public Service Commission for its concurrence on or about 18th December, 1982 (Annexure 14) but the said letter was returned back on the ground that the Chief Ministers approval had not been obtained. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order which has been passed in terms of the Enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is illegal inasmuch as the petitioner had never been communicated with any date of holding of the enquiry proceeding and in any event, admittedly the petitioner's case has not been considered at all on the plea that his show cause reply had not been received. 11. It has been contended that the petitioner had all along been paid his subsistence allowance till the order of suspension was revoked, and thus the question of the petitioner's having been found absent for the purpose of service of notice of the departmental proceeding does not arise. 12. The State in its counter affidavit has, inter-alia, contended that the petitioner has raised the aforementioned plea by way of after-thought. 13. Our attention has been drawn to paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit as also the enquiry report, which is contained in Annexure C thereof for the purpose of showing that the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges levelled against him by the Enquiry Officer. It has been contended that despite notice the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and thus he has no other option but to proceed ex-parte as against him. 14. Before us the records of the Enquiry proceeding had been produced. It appears that along with petitioner no.1 one Mahendra Prasad Singh was also charge-sheeted. Similar charges were also levelled against him. 15. 14. Before us the records of the Enquiry proceeding had been produced. It appears that along with petitioner no.1 one Mahendra Prasad Singh was also charge-sheeted. Similar charges were also levelled against him. 15. From a perusal of the file produced before us, it appears that the same does not contain the records of the departmental proceeding. Even the order-sheet maintained in the disciplinary proceeding have not been produced. 16. It has been contended that from a perusal of the letter of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department dated 24th April, 1986 as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ application it would appear that the petitioner was posted under the said Executive Engineer and thus it is not correct to contend that the petitioner had absented. 17. It has been reiterated that no letter was served upon the petitioner intimating the another date of enquiry. It has been stated that none of the letter shows that any enquiry report had been served upon the petitioner. It has further been contended that although the enquiry report is dated 1st May, 1987, the services of the petitioner had been terminated on 16.10.1993 which also castes a doubt about the genuineness of the enquiry report. It has, been stated that even the enquiry report as contained in Annexure C to the counter affidavit was also not served upon the petitioner. 18. From the records of the departmental proceeding, it does not appear that any notice of the enquiry proceeding had in fact been served upon the petitioner. Further in the said records the show cause reply filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition does not find place. 19. The petitioner in support of his contention stated that the said show cause reply had been sent under registered cover and has also tiled the registration receipt which is contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application. 20. It is also not understandable as to why disciplinary authority had taken such a long time in passing the impugned order, as the enquiry report as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit allegedly was submitted on 14.5.1987. 21. This application is allowed, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application is set aside. The respondents are however, hereby directed to proceed with the departmental proceeding afresh as against the petitioner. 21. This application is allowed, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application is set aside. The respondents are however, hereby directed to proceed with the departmental proceeding afresh as against the petitioner. Although the show cause reply filed by the petitioner is not on record, a copy of the same which is contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition may be treated to be the show cause tiled by the petitioner. Keeping in view that the departmental proceeding had been pending for a long time, it is directed that the departmental proceeding as against the petitioner should be concluded at an early late and preferably within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 22. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall render all co-operation with the Enquiry Officer in the smooth conduct of the departmental proceeding. 23. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the controlling officer whereupon he shall forward the same to the concerned authorities so that the departmental proceeding may be revived. If the Enquiry Officer who has enquired into the matter is not available, another Enquiry Officer should be appointed forthwith. GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J.:- I agree.