IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16197 of 2001 yfyrk flag] firk Lo0 jktxksfoUn flag] lkfdu iks0 oylkxj] Fkkuk cDlj ¼vkS0½] ftyk cDljA ------------- oknh cuke 1 fcgkj ljdkj orZeku Jh eqdqUn izlkn eq[; lfpo] iVuk fcgkjA 2 Jh lanhi ikS.M~hd orZeku ftyk inkf/kdkjh] ftyk cDlj] fcgkjA 3 Jh ujflag izlkn orZeku iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh dslB] Fkkuk ukokuxj] ftyk cDlj] fcgkjA 4 Jh fo'oukFk >k lapkyu inkf/kdkjh] ftyk jkt iapk;r jkt iapk;r inkf/kdkjh] ftyk cDlj] fcgkjA 5 vfer izdk'k orZeku iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh] vapy ,oa Fkkuk& jktiqj] ftyk cDlj ¼fcgkj½A -----------izfroknh x.k ----------- 10 20.7.2009 Heard petitioner in person and learned A.A.G.II, Mr. S.K.Ghosh, counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner in this writ application has assailed an order of dismissal from service dated 29.10.2001 on a number of grounds one of them being that he was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing in course of his departmental proceeding. That Court has carefully gone into the pleadings on record and is satisfied that the petitioner had remained under some sort of misconception as with regard to the departmental proceeding which was being conducted against him, inasmuch as, he 2 remained under an impression that he had been given all relief in the order dated 6.9.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 9389 of 2000 whereas only his order of suspension dated 13.2.2000 been quashed by this Court in the aforesaid order. Probably under this misconceived notion, the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer earlier awaiting for the final result of the aforesaid writ application and latter on account of his suspension order being quashed. It however appears that the petitioner’s absence did not affect the continuation of enquiry and infact the enquiry report was also submitted after completing an ex-parte enquiry, whereupon, the petitioner was also inflicted order of punishment as noted above. This Court, in fact, would also find that such assumption of the petitioner, based on an order of this Court dated 6.9.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 9389/2000 that his entire departmental proceeding itself had been brought to an end was wholly misconceived because by the aforesaid order of his suspension alone had been quashed. 3 The petitioner who happens to be a Class-IV employee and thus not capable of understanding the intricacies of service jurisprudence, therefore needs at least to be given one more opportunity to defend himself in a properly constituted departmental proceeding. It is primarily this aspect of the matter coupled with the sympathy towards the petitioner that has weighted upon this Court to quash this order of punishment dated 29.10.2001 by remitting the matter back to the Collector of the district who will now get the departmental proceeding finally concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Mr. Ghosh, at this stage, with reference to the earlier order of this Court dated 30.6.2009, has produced a letter of the District Magistrate, Buxar dated 15.7.2009 communicating that one Mr. Animesh Kumar, executive Magistrate, Buxar can be directed to function as an enquiry officer who would conduct the departmental proceeding on day-to- day basis and completing the same within a period of two months. 4 In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the petitioner to appear before Mr. Animesh Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Buxar within a week whereafter the said enquiry officer would call upon the petitioner to file his written statement of defence as with regard to the memo of charge within a period of one week and such written statement of defence must be filed by the petitioner by in next two weeks. After filing of the written statement of defence, the documents on which the presenting officer will be relying for proving the charges, shall be placed before the enquiry officer and marked exhibit and if the petitioner would object to authenticity of any particular document only then their formal proof by oral evidence will be necessary. After the marking of the documents as exhibit, the presenting officer shall start leading his evidence on day-to-day basis which he must complete it within a period of three weeks from the date the petitioner would file his written statement of defence. The petitioner thereafter if at all would require to lead his evidence, he must do the same in next three 5 weeks so that the enquiry officer can submit his enquiry report expeditiously preferably within 4 weeks of completion of adducing of the evidence by the petitioner. On receipt of such enquiry report, the Collector of the Buxar district, being the disciplinary authority, shall consider the whole thing and if there would be a need to issue a second show-cause notice in terms of the evidence arrived at in the enquiry report, that will be given to the petitioner by serving it on him through the officer in-charge of the concerned police station of the petitioner. Any refusal of notice by the petitioner or non-cooperation in the departmental proceeding will only entail consequence of the petitioner being deprived of any further hearing and therefore, this Court would make it clear while passing this order in presence of the petitioner that it would be in his interest to cooperate in the proceeding so that the final order is passed within the aforementioned period after considering his show-cause reply. This Court would expect the Collector of the Buxar district to pass his final order after 6 considering the show-cause reply of the petitioner, if any, within a period of next fifteen days of its being filed before him. It is made clear that if the petitioner, being an employee of Collectorate, is aggrieved by an order of the Collector, he will have to first file an appeal in terms of the concerned service rules before the Commissioner and only thereafter, he can have a liberty to move any court of law. Since the petitioner was continuing under suspension prior to his being dismissed from service by the impugned order which has been quashed today, he will be deemed to have been placed under suspension and would continue to remain under suspension till passing of the final order. He would however be entitled for payment of subsistence allowance from today and till the conclusion of the departmental proceeding and passing of the final order. Rest of the payment as claimed by the petitioner would depend on the outcome of the departmental proceeding. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application to the extent 7 indicated above is allowed. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. S.K. Ghosh, AAG-II for its immediate compliance. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)