IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2 of 2005 JAGDISH CHANDRA MEHTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6/ 11/9/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental proceedings initiated by service of memo of charges. The petitioner filed his reply when, it is his assertion, no dates were fixed for enquiry. Based on his defence statement the enquiry officer made queries from certain officials and collected information behind the back of the petitioner outside the departmental enquiry. Those whose evidence was collected in this manner were never examined during the departmental enquiry, much less was the petitioner given an opportunity to cross- examine them. Then followed the enquiry report to which the petitioner filed his reply leading to the order of punishment dated 17.9.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits from paragraphs-23 and 36 of the writ application that, in fact, there has been no departmental enquiry in law at all. - 2 - The counter affidavit of the respondents in reply to the aforesaid assertions simply states that the enquiry has been done in a proper manner after the enquiry officer “enquired from the concerned persons and examined all documents”. This Court on a bare reading of the enquiry report at annexure-12, is satisfied that the enquiry report made queries outside the departmental enquiry, collected evidence behind the back of the petitioner to indict him on that basis. Furthermore, the reply to the queries of the enquiry officer submitted by the concerned persons and on which the petitioner has been indicted were never made available to the petitioner at the stage of enquiry. The order of punishment dated 17.9.2004 is clearly not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The enquiry shall proceed afresh from the stage of issuance of memo of charges to be concluded expeditiously. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )