IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16419 of 2001 BRAHMANAND MISHRA, S/O SHRI DUDHESHWAR MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE-WOOB, P.O.-BHARUB, P.S.-OBERA, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, RAJEDNRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AT PUSA. 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA. 5. DEAN-CUM-PRINCIPAL, BIHAR VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14. …………………RESPONDENTS. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. GOPAL PANDEY, ADV. AND MR. GIRINDARA MOHAN THAKUR, ADV. FOR THE STATE : MR. SHASHI SHEKHAR, ADV.,AC TO SC-20. FOR THE UNIVERSITY : MR. MAHESH NARAYAN PARBAT, ADV. ----------- 4 25.07.2009 The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging order of termination of his service passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University contained in Memo No. 135 dated 18th October, 2000, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-15. Learned counsel for the University has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ application referring to Clause 13.9(10)(a) of Rajendra Agriculture University Statutes, 1976 by which a right of appeal has been given to an employee of the University inflicted with major punishment. 2 He submitted that since statutory right of appeal was available to the petitioner, this writ application may not be entertained and the petitioner may be directed to avail this statutory remedy first. This Court was inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent-University. However, when the impugned order passed by the Vice-Chancellor was placed before this Court, this Court found an apparent legal flaw in the said order. Therefore, this Court feels that the writ application can be disposed of on a short point and hence, it would not be appropriate to relegate the petitioner at this stage to avail his remedy by way of appeal after pendency of this writ application in this Court for about eight years. From the impugned order, it appears that the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer on certain grounds mentioned in the order itself. Therefore, a second show cause notice along with enquiry report was served on the petitioner to show cause as to why the disciplinary authority 3 may not pass appropriate orders in the mater on the basis of materials available on record. The second show cause required the petitioner to submit his reply by 28.7.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this show cause was received by the petitioner on 27.7.2000 i.e. one day before the last date of filing of his reply. Therefore, a petition was filed by the petitioner on 31.7.2000 for allowing him time till 10.8.2000 for submitting reply to the show cause. Petitioner thereafter submitted his reply to the show cause on 9.8.2000. The order shows that the Regional Director, Agricultural Research Institute, Patna was asked to make his comments on the said reply. With his comments the reply was considered by the disciplinary authority and after the said consideration he found “that all the charges levelled against him are correct and the reply of Sri Brahmanand Mishra is not acceptable/tenable. Considering the reply of Sri Mishra, facts of the case and the comments of the Regional Director, Agricultural Research Institute, Patna the services of Sri Brahmanand Mishra terminated with immediate effect.” 4 The portion of the impugned order quoted above shows the final view of the disciplinary authority and his final decision. Apparently, the said view of the disciplinary authority is non-speaking one and shows only his subjective satisfaction. Nothing is mentioned there as to in what manner he considered the reply of the petitioner dated 9.8.2000 and in what manner he found it unsatisfactory or unacceptable and in what manner on the basis of the records, he found the charges approved. Learned counsel for the University submits that in earlier part of the order the disciplinary authority has discussed the history of the matter as well as reasons for his prima facie satisfaction with regard to correctness of the charges. However order shows that the same was mentioned therein for issue of second show cause notice to the petitioner. After the second show cause dated 9.8.2000, there is nothing in the order, except the observation quoted above, to show that there was fresh consideration of the matter or the show cause dated 9.8.2000 of the petitioner was objectively considered. Due to this legal flaw in the order, 5 the order is apparently unsustainable and, therefore, the same is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to consider it afresh on the basis of the records and to consider the show cause and reply filed by the petitioner in the matter and come to an objective conclusion by assigning specific reasons for his finding and thereafter pass final order in the matter positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If he feels appropriate, he will be at liberty to call upon the petitioner to file any further show cause or to represent his case in person before him. The writ application is, therefore, allowed to the above extent with above observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)