IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8053 of 2003 DEVENDRA PRASAD, son of Late Sheo Narayan Prasad, resident of village- Mujaffra, P. S. Islampur, District- Nalanda….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Development Building, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Gaya. 5. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Magadh Division, Gaya. 6. District Co-operative Officer, Gaya. 7. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gaya Circle, Gaya. 8. Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Co-operative, Bihar, Patna. ….. Respondents. ----------- 3. 06.01.2010 Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “(1). That this writ application is directed for a direction to the respondents to pay difference of salary from 1.4.1997 to January 2000 in terms of 5th Pay revised scale and due salary from 1.1.99 to 21.4.99 quashing part of the order contained in Memo No. 143 dated 29.1.2003 and order contained in Memo No. 5910 dated 5.12.2002 as well as the order dated 8.5.2003/5.6.2003 in Appeal Case No. 2 of 2003 whereunder any whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment.” Mr. Sinha with regard to the aforementioned prayer would submit that basically the challenge of the petitioner is to the order of punishment dated 5.12.2002 2 and its affirmance by the appellate authority by an order dated 8.5.2003/5.6.2003 and that too on a limited ground that while disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have relied on some enquiry report submitted by the Joint Director, Co-operative Societies, Magadh Division, Gaya vide its letter no. 254 dated 6.5.2000, copy thereof was not supplied to the petitioner and as such the order of punishment and the consequential appellate order cannot be sustained. Counsel for the State is not in a position to deny this fact that the copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. In fact it appears from the tenor of the order of punishment that the same was passed only after receipt of the enquiry report. In such a situation when the law stands settled by the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. vs. B. Karunakar and Ors. reported in (1993)4SCC 727 laying down that even for a minor punishment the copy of enquiry report submitted after enquiry has to 3 be supplied to the delinquent there would be hardly any thing left for this court now to decide anything in this case beyond that the impugned order of punishment or the consequential appellate order are bad only on account of non-supply of the enquiry report. Had the respondents been careful and filed a counter-affidavit in this case enclosing a copy of enquiry report, this court could have taken recourse to paragraph 31 of judgment of ECIL’s case (supra). Since the enquiry report has not been brought on record, this court is now left with no option but to quash both the orders dated 5.12.2002 and appellate order dated 8.5.2003/5.6.2003 and remit the matter back to Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Magadh Division, Gaya the disciplinary authority, to pass a fresh order but only after supplying a copy of enquiry report and eliciting comments/reactions of the petitioner as against the said enquiry report. Such exercise must be completed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that this Court 4 has not gone into the merit of the charge or the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and has set aside the order of punishment only on account of violation of principles of natural justice by way of non- supply of enquiry report and therefore no monetary benefit would be paid to the petitioner till a fresh order in this regard is passed by the disciplinary authority. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is finally disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)