IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8934 of 2002 ABDUL HASEEN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7. 26.03.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’). After hearing the Counsels for the petitioner and the State and on perusal of the pleadings in the writ application and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, this Court is satisfied that no useful purpose is going to be served by adjourning the matter for the presence of the Counsel for the Board when the pleadings are complete. The Board has had adequate opportunity to present its case before this Court in the form of its pleadings and it cannot be said that the matter was being decided exparte. It is the Board which has chosen not to appear and make submissions and possibly is sanguine for reasons of its counter affidavit filed in the case. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.2002 dismissing him from the post of Assistant in the Board in pursuance of the resolution of the Board dated 23.6.2002. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner with regard to alleged sum of Rs, 2100/- while the dismissal order talks of a sum of approxi9mately Rupees Seven lacs and odd. Learned Counsel draws the attention of the Court to the specific pleadings made in Para 25 to 27 that after show cause notice issued and reply filed by the petitioner no charges were drawn up and served upon the petitioner. There has been no departmental enquiry whatsoever against him and the order of dismissal, a major punishment, has been passed merely on the preliminary enquiry for which he was asked to file a show cause. The Board in Para 13 of its counter affidavit, in reply to Para 25 to 27 of the writ application, does not deny specific assertion of illegalities in procedure in passing of the order of dismissal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner with reference to Para 13 of the counter affidavit suggesting that a criminal case was proposed to be filed by the board, invites attention of the Court to his specific p[leadings in his rejoinder at Para 11 that the assertions were ornamental and that till date no FIR has been lodged against him. Question of an FIR and procedural irregularities in the conduct of departmental proceedings are entirely different matters. The major punishment of dismissal is not sustainable in law in absence of a regular departmental proceeding, adjudication and finding of guilt. The impugned order of punishment is accordingly set aside. This shall be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents in law with regard to the same. This writ application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)