IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13521 of 2004 Dr. Uma Nath Singh, son of Late Jagarnath Prasad Singh, Retired Incharge Insurance Medical Officer, E.S.I. Dispensary, Katihar, Department of Labour, Govt. of Bihar, residing at village Bhawanipur, PS Bihpur, District Bhagalpur – Petitioner. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar through Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna. (2) Deputy Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna. (3) Under Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna. (4) Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Labour Employment and Training, Bihar, Patna. (5) Director, Medical Services, E.S.I. Scheme, Department of Labour, Bihar, Patna – Respondents. … 11 22.2.2011 The petitioner has challenged Annexures 1, 2, 3 & 11 by which a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and the final order passed in the proceeding. The petitioner retired from service after initiation of the departmental proceeding. As such it was converted into a proceeding under rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules. The impugned order Annexure-3 was passed forfeiting 20% of the petitioner’s pension as a punishment. The first challenge in the writ petition is with respect to the competence to initiate a departmental proceeding as it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after he joined the service, he was immediately posted in the Department of Labour, Employment and Training. It is his submission that the petitioner was never posted in the Health Department and as such the Health Department could not have initiated a proceeding against the petitioner. With respect to this issue, it has been specifically stated on behalf of the State that although the petitioner was posted in the Labour, Employment and Training Department, he was never absorbed in the Labour, Employment and Training Department 2 and for all purposes he was treated to be in the Health Department, so much so, as his retiral benefits have also been paid by the Health Department. Having regard to the submissions and the pleadings in the counter affidavit I find that there is no anomaly in the departmental proceeding on the ground that the Health Department was not competent to initiate a proceeding. The main challenge in the departmental proceeding is that the petitioner was never served a notice in the departmental proceeding. To substantiate this fact counsel for the petitioner has drawn the court’s attention to annexure 2 which is enquiry report, dated 11.9.2003. On perusal of the enquiry report it appears that the petitioner was issued a show cause. However, it has not been mentioned as to when and on which address he was issued the show cause. It appears that after the enquiry report, show cause notice along with the enquiry report was issued to the petitioner on his permanent address. The petitioner thereafter filed his show cause which led to the passing of the impugned orders. The principle of natural justice requires that an article of charges along with memo of evidence should be served on the petitioner along with the show cause notice in order to enable the incumbent concerned to file his reply to the allegations levelled against him. An ex parte enquiry report without proper service of notice cannot form the basis of a departmental proceeding. In this case several opportunities were given to the State counsel to bring on record that a show cause notice along 3 with the charges was served on the petitioner. The orders, dated 22.5.2007, 2.7.2007, 10.12.2010 and 13.1.2011 indicate that A.A.G. I was required to file a counter affidavit specifically with respect to the fact whether the petitioner was served a memo of charges and the show cause notice before the enquiry was conducted. However, no counter affidavit has been filed on this aspect of the matter. I accordingly quash Annexures 1, 2, 3 & 11 and direct that respondent no.1 should re-initiate a proceeding by serving memo of charges to the petitioner along with the evidence on which the department intends to rely within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in the proceeding. The petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of this order within eight weeks from the date of its receipt before respondent no.1. This writ petition is allowed. It is made clear that consequential benefits of the petitioner will depend on the result of the departmental proceeding. Since the petitioner has retired, it will be proper that the departmental proceeding itself should be concluded within a period of nine months. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)