IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6635 of 2005 ANIL KUMAR KESHRI Versus BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION.& ORS. ----------- 5 21.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has been compulsorily retired by the respondent Bihar State Financial Corporation, as a measure of punishment after holding departmental inquiry against him. The order of punishment is contained in Annexure – 1 and is dated 27.3.1998. When the petitioner exercised his right of appeal, a cryptic order dated 1.8.2003 came to be communicated, stating therein that the Board of Directors in its meeting has affirmed the order of punishment. Both these orders have come to be challenged in the present writ application. The background of the present litigation is related to the year 1996, when the petitioner as a Deputy Manager had exercised certain powers in terms of his responsibility to sanction loans in favour of certain entrepreneurs. Subsequently, the Corporation came to conclusion that the decision made by the petitioner in recommending such loans was not entirely in conformity with the standing orders. Those breaches have caused serious loss. This was the background under which charges were drawn up against the petitioner and inquiries were held. Petitioner has been found guilty in the inquiry report based on which the disciplinary authority in his 2 wisdom decided to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, seriously challenges the punishment order on many accounts. His primary contention is that there has been breach of the rules of natural justice because certain evidence has been taken by the inquiry officer behind the back of the petitioner and that evidence has been used as one of the grounds for reaching the conclusion of misconduct. He further contends that an opinion reached by him in the given facts and circumstances of the proposal may not be serious breach in the eye of law because a misconduct can only be alleged when there is some material on record to show that the action taken by the petitioner was deliberate and intentional based on some motive. In absence of categorical findings and evidence in this regard, merely because the petitioner had made certain deviations from the guidelines laid down by the corporation in sanctioning of loan, it may not be a case of misconduct at all. The Court does not want to delve too deep into the inquiry, the way it was conducted and the conclusions which have been reached by the disciplinary authorities, because the Court has an advantage of a decision rendered in the case of Mr. Upendra Kumar Vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation, which is C.W.J.C. No. 1905/05. 3 It is a detailed decision dated 21st July 2006, where the Court had taken pains to go into all aspects of the matter and finally the Court did find wrong doing on behalf of the disciplinary authorities and therefore, decided to interfere with the same. This Court after perusing the said order is of the opinion that there is similarity of facts. If the similarity of facts has led to one conclusion that there is serious prejudice which has been caused to the petitioner because of aberration in the procedure and violation of the rules of natural justice, the present petitioner cannot be denied similar treatment. The two impugned orders contained in Annexures – 1 & 2 are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the inquiry officer, who shall take evidence in the matter in front of the petitioner and also give him an opportunity of cross-examining etc. the evidence is of the oral kind. If documentary evidence is used, let it be made available to the petitioner and after giving him liberty to rebuttal the respondents may have an occasion to pass a fresh order depending on the findings which will emerge on the said evidence. The writ application is allowed. Petitioner is directed to cooperate in the inquiry. Rajeev/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)