Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1286 (PAT)

Sikandar Roy v. State Of Bihar

2006-12-21

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had earlier raised a plea that copy of enquiry report was not served upon him before the order dated 7.5.2003 imposing punishment had been passed by the disciplinary authority. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits on the basis of the averments made in para 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit that a copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner vide memo no. 4105 dated 3.9.2004 but the petitioner did not submit his second show cause. The said submission appears, on the face of it, false because memo no. 4105 dated 3.9.2004, in fact, pertains to be a show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the appellate authority for enhancement of his punishment and any supply of copy of enquiry report at that stage cannot affect the infirmity in the original order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. 4. On the previous occasion when this point was raised by the petitioner this Court had directed the petitioner to show what prejudice has been caused on account of non-supply of copy of the enquiry report. For the said purpose a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it is stated that after subsequently perusing the enquiry report annexed as Annexure-B to the supplementary show cause, the petitioner has come to learn that charge no.1 has not been proved and regarding charge no. 2 the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer is for exoneration yet it has been held by the disciplinary authority that there is irregularity and punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner which has definitely prejudiced the petitioner as he had no opportunity to either rely upon the enquiry report for the said purpose or controvert any such contrary finding of the disciplinary authority. 5. If that be the position, then the disciplinary proceedings suffer from a double infirmity. 5. If that be the position, then the disciplinary proceedings suffer from a double infirmity. Apart from the fact that definite prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of non-supply of the enquiry report the respondent-disciplinary authority has also not acted in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra: AIR 1998 SC 2713 , wherein it has been clearly laid down that in case the disciplinary authority disagrees with any finding of the enquiry officer then it must give reason for differing with such findings and afford an opportunity to the proceedee to file his representation with respect to those reasons. 6. In the said circumstances, the orders dated 7.5.2003 and the order dated 27.6.2005 passed respectively by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are both quashed and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter afresh from the stage at which the disciplinary proceeding had become vitiated, in accordance with law. 7. The writ application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.