Judgment 1. In compliance of the orders of this Court dated 16.1.2006 learned counsel for the Bihar State Food Corporation (Hereinafter referred to as "BSFC") has filed supplementary counter affidavit giving the dates on which the enquiry proceeded and witnesses examined. In support of the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit, learned counsel has also produced the departmental file for perusal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the BSFC. 3. Petitioner, who was Assistant Godown Manager in the Corporation, has been dismissed from service under the impugned order dated 3.2.2004, Annexure-27 holding him guilty of defalcating a sum of Rs. 8,18,195/- (eight lac eighteen thousand one hundred ninety five) out of which 1,28,625/- (one lac twenty eight thousand six hundred twenty five) was deposited by him and this writ petition has been filed assailing the aforesaid order of dismissal dated 3.2.2004, Annexure-27. 4. Learned counsel appearing in support of this application has contended that the dismissal order is bad on several grounds, namely: 1. The proceeding was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. 2. In the proceeding the Enquiry Officer himself acted as a Presenting Officer and he proved the charges levelled against the petitioner only on the basis of the audit report and the various orders/instructions given to the petitioner and notes given in the file but no evidence whatsoever was led/produced before the Enquiry Officer and thereby the entire proceeding conducted by him including the Enquiry Report dated 16.12.2003, Annexure 25 is non est in the eye of law. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Verma V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1991 (1) PUR 401, Paragraph 11, Dr. Anzar Hassan Ibrahimi V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2004(4) PLJR 517 , paragraph 11 and Virendra Prasad Singh "Gautam" V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1992(1) PLJR 304, paragraph 14. 3. With reference to the averments made in paragraphs 8,11,14 and 23 of the writ petition it is submitted that the documents which formed the basis of the charge-sheet was never served on the petitioner. 4. It has been further submitted that the second show-cause reply dated 27.1.2004, Annexure-26 was never considered by the disciplinary authority. 5. 3. With reference to the averments made in paragraphs 8,11,14 and 23 of the writ petition it is submitted that the documents which formed the basis of the charge-sheet was never served on the petitioner. 4. It has been further submitted that the second show-cause reply dated 27.1.2004, Annexure-26 was never considered by the disciplinary authority. 5. He further submitted that for the aforesaid allegation of defalcation a criminal case was also lodged against him under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Penal Code and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class discharged him from the said prosecution under orders dated 21.9.1998, Annexure-11 and in view of the said discharge order petitioner should not be dismissed from service on similar allegations and on this ground also the impugned dismissal order should be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation with reference to the Enquiry Report dated 16.12.2003, Annexure-25 as also the contents of the letter dated 6.11.2000 of the Enquiry Officer as contained in Annexure-14 and the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit filed today has submitted that the charge of defalcation levelled against the petitioner was proved with respect to the godown and sale registers which was nothing but documentary evidence and the entries in the registers were further corroborated by the oral and documentary evidence which was also adduced before the Enquiry Officer and referred to in the Enquiry Report. 6. In view of the contents of the Enquiry Report and the supplementary affidavit I am of the view that both oral and documentary evidence was adduced before the Enquiry Officer after due notice to the petitioner and this Court is not in a position to examine the sufficiency of those evidence. As such, the contention that no evidence was placed before the Enquiry Officer is not correct and accordingly rejected. 7. As such, the contention that no evidence was placed before the Enquiry Officer is not correct and accordingly rejected. 7. The other contention raised by the petitioner that the documents which were the basis of the charge-sheet was never served on the petitioner is also not correct as from very perusal of the letter of the Enquiry Officer dated 6.11.2000, Annexure-14 it appears that the petitioner was allowed sufficient opportunity to inspect the documents which were the basis of the charge and according to this Court, opportunity to inspect the documents which were the basis of the charge was enough opportunity to the petitioner and this Court is not inclined to accept the submission made in this regard that documents were not served on the petitioner which is accordingly rejected. 8. The ground that the impugned dismissal order should be set aside as on the exactly similar allegation in the criminal case petitioner was discharged under order dated 21.9.1998, Annexure-11 shall also not persuade this Court to set aside the impugned dismissal order as perusal of the discharge order dated 21.9.1998, Annexure-11 itself will indicate that petitioner was discharged from the criminal case as the departmental authorities did not produce the register and other materials to support the prosecution case in spite of several indulgences granted to them and according to this Court as the discharge in the criminal case is on the ground of lack of evidence the same should not persuade this Court to interfere with the dismissal order in a case of defalcation which is based not only on documentary evidence namely the godown and sale register but also the oral evidence referred to and discussed in the Enquiry Report. 9. To refute the submission that the Enquiry Officer himself was acting as the Presenting Officer, the respondents have produced the departmental proceeding file before this Court and from the file it does not appear that the Enquiry Officer himself was acting as a Presenting Officer. In the circumstances, the submission raised in this regard has also no. merit to stand which is also rejected. 10. In the result, the application fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.