IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.368 of 2010 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna-cum-the Inquiry Officer -- Respondents- Appellants Versus Vijay Shankar, son of Late Gokhul Mochi, resident of village- Gandhar, Police Station-Ghosi, District- Jehanabad, the retired Section Officer, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. …………………. Petitioner-Respondent. -------------- For the appellants :- Mr. Chhotelal Narain Singh, SC-I For the Respondent :- Mr. S.B.K.Mangalam, Advocate. ------------- 2. 4.3.2010 I.A. No. 1946 of 2010 has been filed for condoning the delay of 76 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On a consideration of the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that sufficient ground exists for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the delay is condoned. I.A. No. 1946 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of. 2 Having condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties it is being finally disposed of. Heard learned Standing Counsel No. 1 for the State-appellants and Mr. S.B.K.Mangalam for the respondent. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.10.2009 passed in CWJC No. 4630 of 2009 by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ application after setting aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2008. By the said order, being resolution contained in memo no. 10291 dated 30.12.2008, the disciplinary authority returned the enquiry report of the enquiry officer with a direction to him to make a fresh enquiry into the charges against the petitioner-respondent in the light of the concerned evidence and submit his report within a stipulated time. The learned Single Judge has noted that in the case of two similarly situated employees, the authorities had accepted the enquiry report exonerating them and the enquiry officer has also exonerated the petitioner but in his case the 3 disciplinary authority has refused to accept the enquiry report and has directed re-enquiry, which the learned Single Judge found difficult to appreciate as to what re-enquiry was proposed to be held when it was the case of the respondents- appellants that no records were available. For the said reasons he was satisfied that there was no justification in law for the respondents-appellants to adopt two different yardsticks with regard to the aforesaid two exonerated persons and the petitioner-respondent on common allegations. In that context it was also observed by the learned Single Judge as follows: “If the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the same, the correct procedure in law to be followed by it was, if it so proposed, to differ with the enquiry report, furnish the ground with tentative material for difference of opinion to the petitioner, provide him an opportunity and then to proceed in accordance with law.” Learned Standing Counsel No.1 appearing for the State-appellants has sought to support the action of the disciplinary authority stating that it was open to the disciplinary authority to call for a fresh enquiry report as the 4 exoneration of the petitioner-respondent was only based upon the fact that the records were not available with the Department and therefore, they could not be produced before the disciplinary authority and it was not a case of no evidence. This Court does not find any force in the above submissions of learned State counsel. When a disciplinary proceeding is initiated by the State Government against a delinquent official, it is for the authorities of the State to ensure that the relevant material is produced before the enquiry officer and it is not open to them to take the plea after the enquiry officer concludes the proceedings and furnishes his report that re-enquiry should be held; more so, when no such action was taken with respect to other two similarly placed employees. A disciplinary proceeding is meant to punish an employee for misconduct and the authorities of the State are required to produce all the relevant materials against him before the enquiry officer so that the proceedee may meet the same. It should not become a source of persecuting the employee by calling for repeated enquiries and reports from the enquiry officer, that too 5 without any sufficient cause for the non-production of the evidence during the enquiry, while not taking similar action in respect of similarly situated employees. We are, thus, unable to find any ground on which the order of the learned Single Judge can be assailed. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)