Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1193 (PAT)

Ajay Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2003-11-20

R.N.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment 1. The petitioner was an employee of the Transport Department, Government of Bihar. He was posted as clerk at Gaya. He was suspended and a show-cause notice was issued to him vide letter dated 2.6.1990, Annexure-5. He challenged the said order in C.W.J.C. No. 4070/90. On 24.8.1990 the case was adjourned to enable the State to file counter-affidavit, Annexure-6. The respondents issued a letter to the petitioner on 25.6.1991 to the effect that if he withdrew the writ petition his suspension would be revoked, Annexure-7. He pursuant to Annexure-7 withdrew the writ petition on 28.6.1991, Annexure-8. His suspension was revoked vide letter dated 12.7.1991, Annexure-9. However, a proceeding was initiated against him vide letter dated 25.7.1990. Charge was framed and he participated in the enquiry. The enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority on 21.12.1991, Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, vide letter dated 13.5.1992 awarded punishment to the petitioner, Annexure-13. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order, Annexure-13, in this writ petition. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed justifying the action of the respondents. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed wherein enquiry report has been attached. The grievance of the petitioner is that since regular proceeding was initiated and enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry authority the petitioner was entitled to the enquiry report and the second show-cause notice. However, this fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit/ supplementary counter-affidavit that enquiry report/second show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the parties argued on the basis of their pleadings. However, on consideration of the submission and the materials on record this much is obvious that departmental proceeding was initiated which is evident from Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Enquiry was also made and the petitioner participated in the enquiry. The enquiry report was also submitted by the enquiring authority before the disciplinary authority but neither the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner nor any second show-cause notice was issued to him and the order of punishment, Annexure-13, was passed. It is well established rule of law that if regular proceeding is initiated the delinquent is entitled to the enquiry report and also to second show-cause notice with respect to the proposed punishment but it appears that nothing has been done. It is well established rule of law that if regular proceeding is initiated the delinquent is entitled to the enquiry report and also to second show-cause notice with respect to the proposed punishment but it appears that nothing has been done. In the counter-affidavit also no denial has been made with respect to claim of the petitioner. 4. Thus the writ petition is allowed. The order, Annexure-13, is hereby quashed. However, respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh from the stage of serving copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.