IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6472 of 2010 1. ARVIND KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE BISHWANATH SINGH RESIDING AT A/3, VITTA VIBHAG COLONY, PHASE-II, P.O.- B.V.COLLEGE POLICE STATION- RAJIV NAGAR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKASH BHAVAN, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKASH BHAVAN, PATNA 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UDYOG BHAVAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-800 004 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UDYOG BHAVAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA- 800004. ----------- 04. 06.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority(hereinafter referred to as the BIADA). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.3.2008, Annexure-2 passed by the disciplinary authority terminating his services with immediate effect pursuant to departmental proceeding conducted in the light of the charge sheet dated 16.6.2007, Annexure- 7. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2009, Annexure-1 of the appellate authority, whereunder his appeal filed against the termination order dated 17.3.2008 has been disallowed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that additional chargesheet was issued to the petitioner under letter dated 18.2.2008 and reminder dated 25.2.2008, contained in Annexures-12, 12/1 to this application. It is further submitted that additional chargesheet and the reminder could not be served on the petitioner as the same was issued during the strike period between 13.2.2008 and 17.3.2008 when Class- - 2 - III and IV employees of BIADA had gone on strike and the strikers were not permitting the officer(s) like the petitioner to enter the office and as the petitioner was prevented by the strikers from entering the office of the BIADA, he could not receive the additional chargesheet and reminder dated 18,25.02.2008, Annexures-12, 12/1. It is further submitted that during the strike period the Enquiry Officer submitted undated enquiry report, which was sent to the petitioner under second show-cause notice dated 03.03.2008, Annexure-13. On account of the strike second show-cause notice was also not served on the petitioner and without giving him any opportunity to disprove the charges levelled against him either before the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority the impugned termination order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 17.3.2008, Annexure-2, which is violative of the principles of natural justice and arbitrary violative Article-14 of the Constitution. 4. Petitioner challenged the termination order dated 17.3.2008, Annexure-2 by filing appeal highlighting the point that without giving him any opportunity to defend himself, both before the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority the termination order has been passed. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal without considering the submission raised by the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of being heard as was directed by this Court under order dated 19.11.2009, Annexure-16. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the BIADA, wherefrom it does not appear that the additional chargesheet and - 3 - reminder dated 18,25.2.2008 was served on the petitioner. It does not appear from the said counter affidavit that the Enquiry Officer before submitting undated enquiry report had given any opportunity to the petitioner. It also does not appear from the said counter affidavit that the second show-cause notice dated 03.03.2008 was served on the petitioner. It is thus, quite evident that order terminating the services of the petitioner dated 17.03.2008, Annexure-2 as also the undated enquiry report dated 3.3.2008, Annexure-13 has been passed/submitted without giving any opportunity of being heard either by the Enquiry Officer or by the disciplinary authority. In the circumstances, enquiry report dated 3.3.2008 and termination order dated 17.3.2008 suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice and are, accordingly, quashed. Appellate order dated 23.12.2009, Annexure-1 was passed without considering the submissions, which have been noted above, in the circumstances, the same also suffers from the vice of violation of natural justice and is, accordingly, set aside. It goes without saying that in compliance of this order the authorities of the BIADA should reinstate the petitioner and proceed against him in accordance with law. Salary for the period during which petitioner remained under dismissal, shall be subject to the result of the proceeding which will be conducted in the light of this order. Current salary of the petitioner shall however, be paid to the petitioner during the conduction of enquiry proceeding. Rajesh/Ibrar. (V.N. Sinha, J.)