Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 120 (PAT)

Ram Ratan Tiwary v. State Of Bihar

2005-02-04

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against order dated 15.9.1999, as contained in annexure 9, whereby and whereunder he has been found guilty and punished in departmental proceeding to the extent that he was reverted to his original scale i.e. Rs. 4750/- and further that he will not get anything for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of complaint made by one Saira Khatoon, wife of driver constable Nazrul Haque, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and memo of charges was served on him, which he replied and thereafter only second show-cause notice was given to him without serving a copy of the inquiry report. It is further submitted that no copy of inquiry report was served on the petitioner enabling him to file an effective reply, and, therefore, his case has been prejudiced. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein the fact that a copy of the inquiry report was not served on the petitioner has not been denied, rather it is stated that finding of the conducting officer was precisely mentioned in the second show-cause notice, which was duly served on him. 5. From the tenor of the statement made in the counter affidavit, it appears that the respondents have tried to make out a case that since gist of the inquiry report was mentioned in the second show-caused notice, the copy of the inquiry report was not required to be served on the petitioner. 6. Second show-cause notice, which has been served on a delinquent, pertains to proposed punishment. From annexure 8, which is the second show-cause notice, it does not appear that the inquiry report was reproduced in it. 7. Before serving a second show- cause notice, the disciplinary authority was required in law to serve a copy of the inquiry report upon the delinquent petitioner. 8. Admittedly, this has not been done and, thus, prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioner. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the inquiry report was not served upon the petitioner, in my opinion, principles of Natural Justice have been violated, causing much prejudice to the case of the petitioner. 10. Admittedly, this has not been done and, thus, prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioner. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the inquiry report was not served upon the petitioner, in my opinion, principles of Natural Justice have been violated, causing much prejudice to the case of the petitioner. 10. In the result, this application is allowed, order as contained in annexure 9 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to proceed in the matter from the stage of serving of a copy of the inquiry report on the petitioner.