IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8110 of 1993 SURESH SINGH Versus STATE & ORS ----------- For Petitioner: Mr. Dilip Kr. Tiwari, Mr. Krishna Kant Tiwari For the State : Mr. Satyendra Kr. Jha, J.C. to A.A.G.-7 3 7.8.2008 The petitioner was the Headmaster of a Primary School. He was aggrieved by the departmental proceeding and particularly aggrieved by annexure-23 by which he has been punished without giving him a show cause or a copy of the enquiry report. This Court is deciding this case on a limited legal question, which is, whether the petitioner would be entitled to receive a copy of the enquiry report and have a right to reply to the findings of the Enquiring Officer before he is awarded punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out two facts in this writ application which makes me conclude that the proceeding was not conducted in a proper manner. I may quote paragraph 34 of the writ application “that on 3.11.1992 the aforesaid Head Clerk and two clerks appeared before the respondent no. 3. The petitioner also appeared 2 before the respondent no. 3 but he was sent out of the room and something in writing were obtained from them.” In reply to this paragraph 34, the State has stated that it has no comment to make on the said assertions and when the petitioner has repeated the same allegation at paragraph 48 of the writ petition, the reply in the counter affidavit is strange to a judicial proceeding and certainly against principles of fair play and natural justice. The reply is “that with regard to the statement made in para-48, it is stated that the statement of the petitioner it (sic) is not same to be justified it was not all binding upon the respondent examined (sic) those clerk in the presence of the petitioner.” In my view the entire enquiry conducted by Sri Nagendra Nath, the Deputy Director of Education, Patna becomes infructuous in view of the statement aforesaid. The Enquiry Officer could not have taken a statement of witnesses behind the back of petitioner. The petitioner has also stated at paragraph 24 that the enquiry report was not 3 supplied to him. The reply of the State is that “It is not binding upon the Enquiry Officer to inform the petitioner regarding the submission of the enquiry report. There is no provision in law that a copy of the enquiry report be handed over to the Conducing Officer and the rest and requires no comment.” On pursuing the statements made by the Assistant Inspector of Basic Schools who has sworn the counter affidavit, this Court is constrained to observe that the deponent apparently is completely unaware of any procedure of law for conducting a departmental enquiry. It is well settled law, and has been decided in the case of Union of India Vs. Md. Ramzan Khan reported in (1991)1 S.C.C. 588 wherein the Court has held that the delinquent is entitled to get a copy of the enquiry report even if the statutory rules do not specifically state that the copy should be handed over to the delinquent. In the result I hold that the matter should be remanded and fresh enquiry should be conducted after following all the procedures 4 and the respondents should also supply the copy of documents to the petitioner on which the respondents propose to rely. The said enquiry and subsequent proceeding should be completed within a period of four months on receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned aforesaid. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)