IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12373 of 2003 DEVENDRA PRASAD SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 7 25.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 1.7.2002 bearing no. 914 of 2002 (Annexure-23) passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the departmental proceeding No. 70 of 2001, whereby punishment of withholding of two increments and non-payment of salary for the period of suspension have been awarded. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 2.12.2002 passed by the Respondent no.3, upholding the order of punishment in the departmental proceeding, by Respondent no.4. The appellate order has been challenged on the ground of being non- speaking and cryptic. So far the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority awarding punishment is concerned, has been challenged on many grounds. One of the grounds being non-supply of enquiry report to the petitioner before passing the order of punishment. 2 The facts of the case is that in the year 2001 the petitioner was posted as Officer In-charge at Singhaul out post. A Tractor bearing No. BR 08-0855 belonging to one Hira Lal Yadav was seized by the District Transport Officer on 29.3.2001 in routine course of checking and handed over to the Out post for safe custody. The Station diary entry was made in this regard on 29.3.2001. Petitioner’s case is that constable No. 389 Krishna Kumar and constable no. 489 Ramji Prasad were entrusted the charge of safety and security of the tractor parked at the outpost. Petitioner was transferred from Singhaul out post vide transfer order dated 19.8.2001 and posted as Reserve Sub Inspector I, Police Line, Begusarai. He had handed over his charge on 19.8.2001 itself and proceeded for giving joining at transferred place. Thereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on account of dis-appearance of the seized tractor, the custody of which was handed over to the Officer In-charge of out post. Petitioner was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him alleging lapses on the part of the petitioner in dis-appearance of the seized tractor. In the departmental proceeding 3 petitioner was served with the memo of charge on 3.11.2001. He appeared before the Conducting Officer and demanded the documents mentioned in departmental proceeding no. 70 of 2001 in order to file an effective show cause. He also demanded the Photostat copy of the statement of constable Krishna Kumar and Constable Ramji Prasad. His case is that without providing any opportunity to cross-examine the relevant witnesses and supply of any relevant documents, the Conducting Officer proceeded with the enquiry report and finally the conducting Officer submitted the enquiry report with a finding that the charges have been proved. Even enquiry report submitted by the Conducting Officer before the Disciplinary authority, holding that all the charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved, was not furnished to him. For the first time it was furnished to him along with the punishment order. However the Disciplinary authority without furnishing the enquiry report and providing an opportunity to the petitioner for submitting second show cause, passed the order of punishment, whereby punishment of withholding of the increments with cumulative effect and non-payment of salary for the 4 period of suspension was awarded to him. The appellate authority also did not consider the memo of appeal preferred by the petitioner and dismissed it without assigning any reason, by a cryptic order. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, this fact has been brought before the Court that the petitioner while still posted as Officer In-charge, Singhaul out post disobeyed the release order passed in favour of the owner of the tractor,. though properly communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner has made wrong statement that no order for releasing the tractor was communicated, till date he was posted at Singhaul Outpost. Petitioner however has tried to take shelter behind the transfer order stating that it was communicated when handed over charge at Singhaul out post to for giving joining at Begusarai. This is an incorrect statement. However in the counter affidavit there is no specific averment regarding the statement made in paragraph 25 of the writ application by the petitioner regarding non- supply of enquiry report and not providing an opportunity to submit second show cause. The counsel appearing for the State was directed to file supplementary 5 counter affidavit, either admitting or denying this statement. In the supplementary counter affidavit, there is an admission that the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner along with the punishment order and prior to that it was not supplied to the petitioner. There is no denial that no opportunity was assigned to the petitioner for submitting second show cause. However it has been stated that this is the practice which is being followed by the departmental authorities. It is completely in violation of the rules of natural justice as well as the rule for holding a departmental proceeding. Since there is clear admission in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent regarding non-supply of enquiry report as well as non providing an opportunity to file second show cause the impugned order dated 1.7.2002 bearing no. 914 of 2002 imposing punishment by respondent no.4 in the departmental proceeding no. 70 of 2001 against the petitioner as well as appellate order dated 2.12.2002 passed by respondent nos. 3 are quashed. The matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to initiate a departmental proceeding from the 6 stage where the enquiry report is to be furnished to the petitioner and opportunity will be provided to him for filing second show cause. Once it is done the Disciplinary authority can pass final order in accordance with law in the departmental proceeding no. 70 of 2001. The enquiry report must be furnished to the petitioner immediately on receipt/communication of this order and the departmental proceeding thereafter must be concluded within three months thereafter. This application is allowed. Akumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.)