IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16483 of 2007 HARI NANDAN SINGH YADAV, son of late Sahdeo Singh Yadav, resident of village – Nawadi, P.S. Nokha, District – Rohtas. ________ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary cum Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Agriculture Director , Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Joint Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Joint Agriculture Director, Patna Division, Patna. 7. The Deputy Secretary, Finance (Personal Grievance Redressal Cell), Department, Bihar, Patna. 8. The Agriculture Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram. 9. The Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas. 10. The Treasury Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas. 11. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 12. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 13. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 14. The Deputy Secretary, Agriculture and Sugar Cane Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 15. The Block Development Officer, Churchu, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ________ Respondents . ----------- 5. 19.07.2010 It is a sad reflection in the way the departmental proceeding has been conducted in a matter where there was allegation of huge amount of public money being swindled by certain government officials which included the present petitioner. Issue related to a scheme which was executed under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna, relating to the year 1998-99. Petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer at Churchu in the district of Hazaribagh. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 is that no proper enquiry was held in the matter. Even if the so- called enquiry was held it was held ex parte and there is no finding of guilt of the kind which was required to be recorded on the basis of evidence, if at all it was produced before the enquiry officer. Counsel for the petitioner does not deny that for certain reasons he could not participate in the enquiry but that does not absolve the responsibility of the enquiry officer who has to still see that evidence is led on the charges and findings are recorded. Nothing of the kind has been done. Because of such submission counsel for the State was direcvted to produce original records relating to departmental enquiry. The record has been finally tendered to the Court after the Court took a serious view of the matter which is reflected in the earlier orders. From the file it has emerged that no enquiry report of the kind was ever submitted by the enquiry officer. In his communication to the disciplinary authority he has stated the number of dates the petitioner did not appear for the enquiry and he has opined that since petitioner did not defend himself he has to be held guilty. That document has been labelled by the counsel for the State as enquiry report. The report of the enquiry officer is at page 268 of the original file. Either the enquiry officer did not know his job or responsibility or he was mixed up with the petitioner. Law being what it is, absence of the petitioner from enquiry per say does 3 not mean that he is guilty. Ex parte enquiries are permissible under law but ex parte prima facie declaration of guilt is not. There ought to have been finding on the material and evidence which is not reflected from the record. Obviously either the enquiry officer or somebody else interested in the welfare of the petitioner allowed things of the kind to pass. This Court is more fortified with that view under the circumstances that if the enquiry officer failed or did not understand law or procedure, the disciplinary authority should have pointed out the lacuna and taken corrective steps but nothing of the kind has been done. Based on the so-called report of declaration of guilt the order of punishment has come to be passed. In the given set of facts which has been reflected in the earlier part of the order the Court has no option but to extend relief to the petitioner because if the procedure or process of law has not been followed the consequential order of punishment, if any, flowing therefrom cannot be allowed to be sustained. The impugned order dated 21.5.2007 contained in annexure-12 by virtue of which the entire pension as well as gratuity of the petitioner was withheld is hereby quashed and the writ application is allowed. Before parting the Court can only observe that there is an obligation on the State to fix liability upon people who have conducted themselves in such a casual manner in such a serious matter. The Court grants liberty to the respondents that 4 in case law so permits, they can look into the matter afresh and proceed from the position where report of guilt had been tendered by the enquiry officer without holding proper enquiry into the matter. Keeping in mind that the petitioner has superannuated, they have to complete the exercise within a reasonable time frame in this regard if such a course is embarked upon. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)