ORDER Heard Smt. M. Chhatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No.5, who appears on behalf of Respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri R.K.Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 5 and 6. 2. The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, has prayed for quashing of an order, contained Memo No.07 dated 07.02.2008 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition), whereby Respondent no.6/ Town Commissioner, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya has passed order of dismissal of the petitioner from service and directed for recovery of all the payment made to the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. Short fact of the case is that in the year 2002 on certain charges, the petitioner was put on departmental proceeding by order contained in Memo No.535 dated 30.08.2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Charges were prepared against the petitioner and served on him. By the said order, conducting officer was appointed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his show cause. Besides demanding certain documents, he also raised the defence in the show cause. However, due to one reason or other, the enquiry was not completed. One of the main reasons for non-conclusion of enquiry was that the Inquiry Officer himself was made an accused and finally vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition i.e. order contained in Memo No. 1024 dated 21.11.2007, the Town Commissioner, Gaya Municipal Commissioner passed an order appointing a new conducting Officer. Besides appointing new conducting Officer, Respondent no.6 also directed to submit enquiry report within a period of four days. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 27.11.2007, wherein he opined that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. After receipt of enquiry report, the petitioner was given an opportunity to file second show cause and the petitioner submitted his second show cause in the office, which was received on 13.12.2007. Finally, by order dated 07.02.2008, Respondent no.6 has passed the order, which has been assailed in the present writ petition, as contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition. 4. Smt. M. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order of dismissal of the petitioner from his service, has raised a preliminary issue that departmental proceeding was complete in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Smt. M. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order of dismissal of the petitioner from his service, has raised a preliminary issue that departmental proceeding was complete in violation of principles of natural justice. She submits that the order, whereby new conducting officer was appointed, itself is indicative of the fact that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner due to the reason that while appointing conducting officer by order dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), the Respondent no.6 had directed the conducting officer to submit its enquiry report within a period of four days. Meaning thereby, the direction itself was issued not to provide opportunity to the petitioner. It has further been contended that during the departmental proceeding no presenting officer was appointed nor the petitioner was asked to get any assistance. It has been pleaded that the conducting officer, who was conducting enquiry, was also acting as prosecuting officer and, accordingly, the enquiry report itself was vitiated. Besides this, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that Respondent no.6/ Town Commissioner, Gaya Municipal Commissioner was not competent to pass order of dismissal against the petitioner. 5. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.6. Sri R.K.Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the Respondents/ Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya supports the impugned order and he submits that bare perusal of enquiry report i.e. Annexure-12 to the writ petition shows that the petitioner had participated in the departmental enquiry and, as such, it cannot be said that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner. While referring to averments made in the counter affidavit, he further submits that Respondent no.6 was competent authority to pass the impugned order. He has further submitted that charges were served on the petitioner and petitioner himself had delayed the conclusion of enquiry, which was going on since the year, 2002. 6. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In paragraph no.20 of the writ petition, a specific averment has been made by the petitioner, which makes it clear that no opportunity was given to the petitioner. It would be appropriate to quote paragraph-20 of the writ petition, which is as follows:— “20. 6. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In paragraph no.20 of the writ petition, a specific averment has been made by the petitioner, which makes it clear that no opportunity was given to the petitioner. It would be appropriate to quote paragraph-20 of the writ petition, which is as follows:— “20. That on 22.11.2007, when the petitioner reached the office for discharging his duty, he was orally informed to meet Shri Jai Shankar Pathak, Additional Town Commissioner and accordingly the petitioner met him and on that date i.e. on 22.11.2007 the Conducting Officer asked some questions to the petitioner which the petitioner replied and thereafter there was no communication with him. It is categorically stated that no document was produced on that date on behalf of the Department neither any Presenting Officer was present nor any prosecution witness was produced nor the petitioner was afforded with any opportunity to defend himself. In fact, till the petitioner met Jai Shankar Pathak, the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the said Jai Shankar Pathak has been appointed as the Conducting Officer and on that date the departmental proceeding would proceed. On the oral order, he met the said Conducting Officer without knowing that he is to proceed in departmental proceeding.” 7. Though, a specific stand has been taken by the petitioner that no opportunity was given nor any presenting officer was appointed, in the counter affidavit, there is no denial and, as such, it will be deemed that the averment made in paragraph-20 of the writ petition is correct. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner himself was responsible for delay in conclusion of the departmental enquiry. From Annexure-10 to the writ petition, it is evident that earlier conducting officer was made an F.I.R. accused and he was abstaining and due to the said reason, no enquiry report was submitted. Annexure-10 to the writ petition further makes it clear that while appointing a new conducting officer, Respondent no.6 had directed him to submit its report within a period of four days and virtually in compliance of Annexure-10 to the writ petition, the conducting officer had submitted its report within the specified period fixed by the disciplinary authority i.e. on 27.11.2007 itself, whereas the new conducting officer was appointed on 21.11.2007. After going through the materials available on record, the Court is satisfied that departmental proceeding had proceeded against the petitioner contrary to the settled principle of natural justice. It is also not disputed that no presenting officer was appointed in the departmental proceeding. In absence of presenting officer, the enquiry report prepared by the conducting officer may not be relied upon. The record does not indicate that the petitioner was also asked to get assistance during departmental proceeding. The enquiry report, which was prepared within short period of four or five days makes it clear that it was in complete violation of principles of natural justice and, as such, the Court is of the opinion that on the basis of such enquiry report, the disciplinary authority was not required to pass any order of punishment and, as such, order impugned i.e. Annexure-14 is hereby set aside. In view of the fact that the order impugned has been set aside, the petitioner shall be entitled to get all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.