IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13204 of 2007 Alakh Paswan, S/o late Bishun Paswan, resident of village Parariya, P.O. & P.S. Nardiganj, Distt. Nawadah at present posted as Headmaster, Kanhai High School, Nawadah. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Secretary to the Government, Department of Human Resources, Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya. 5. District Education Officer, Nalanda. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 21.09.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order of punishment dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure-12) cannot be sustained not only on the ground it is a cryptic non-speaking order based on concurrence of the findings of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer in his enquiry report but even such enquiry report is equally short and cryptic which does not fulfill the requirement of an objective enquiry report. It is true that the enquiry report has not to be like a judgment of Court of law but then the enquiry report at least must indicate application of mind on the charges in the light of evidence taken into consideration for holding the delinquent guilty or otherwise in the departmental 2 proceeding. In the present case when the enquiry officer had given the following charge wise findings:- ^^vkjksi dk fooj.k 1- Jh d`".knso izlkn ,oa Jh johUnz feJ dks QthZ fu;qfDr i=] QthZ lkeatu i=@LFkkukUrj.k i= ds vk/kkj ij fo|ky; esa ;ksxnku djk;k tkA tkWp izfrosnu 1- vkjksi lR; ik;k x;kA 2- QthZ f'k{kdksa dk osrukfn Hkqxrku QthZ i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij djk;k x;k rFkk Hkqxrku ds iwoZ foHkkxh; Lrj ij lR;kiu ugha djk;k x;kA 2- Hkqxrku ds iwoZ fofgr izfdz;k dk fuoZgu djus esa vkjksfir iz/kkuk/;kid iw.kZr% f'kfFky ik;s x;s ;g vkjksi iw.kZr% buij izekf.kr gksrk gS D;ksafd iz/kkuk/;kid }kjk fu;e ds vkyksd esa ,oa O;ogkj esa Hkh ,slh dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha dhA Qyr% QthZ :i ls fu;qDr f'k{kdksa dks lg;ksx djus esa budh Hkwfedk Li"V :i ls ifjyf{kr gksrh gSA 3- Qth f'k{kdksa dks dh xbZ Hkqxrku dh jkf'k dh olwyh D;ksa ugha lwn ds lkFk dh tk;A 3- ;g foHkkfx; fu.kZ; ls lacaf/kr gSA 4- QthZ f'k{kd dk ekeyk mn~Hksnu gksus ij vius dks fufyZIr ekuus dk iz;kl djukA 4- ;g vkjksi buij iw.kZr% izekf.kr gksrk gSA 5- ljdkj dh jkf'k dks [kfr igqWpkus ds dkj.k D;ksa ugha lafyIr ekuk tk;A 5- ;g foHkkfx; fu.kZ; ls lacaf/kr gSA 6- QthZ f'k{kd ds Hkqxrku dh jkf'k dh olwyh ds dze esa ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ukyUnk ds i=kad 1909 fnukad 24-12-98 }kjk fd;k x;k i=kpkj dk mrj le; ij ugha nsukA 6- ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ukyUnk }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij ;g vkjksi vkjksfir iz0v0 ij Li"V :i ls izekf.kr gksrk gSA 7- Jh izlkn ds {ks=h; mi f'k{kk funs'kd] iVuk izeaMy] iVuk ds QthZ Kkikad 2615 fnukad 27-07-96 ds vkyksd esa fnukad 21-08-96 dks fcuk tkWp iM+rky ds fo|ky; esa ;ksxnku djuk 7- ;g vkjksi iw.kZr% lR; ik;k x;kA 8- Jh izlkn ds QthZ lsok iqfLrdk ds lR;kiu djkus dk iz;kl djukA 8- vkjksi lR; ,oa izekf.kr gksrk gSA** the same must be held to be a perfunctory 3 enquiry report, inasmuch as, the enquiry officer had merely recorded the charges and his conclusion in respect of them by way of either proved or not proved. Such enquiry report infact cannot be made basis for inflicting an order of punishment. In this connection, reference may be made to the order of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Kittu reported in 2001 (1) SCC 65, wherein, it was held that findings in the enquiry report must be clear and definite and must be based on consideration of evidence of all witnesses and/or document produced before him by both the delinquent and presenting officer. Thus the impugned order of punishment passed on such wholly perfunctory enquiry report cannot be sustained. Normally, this Court could have still remitted the matter to the appellate authority in view of the provisions of appeal against the order of punishment under Sewa Shart Niyamvali but then when the impugned order of punishment also indicates that the same has been passed with the prior approval of the State Government, the remedy of appeal 4 of the petitioner would also be illusory. That being so, this Court would quash both the order of punishment as also the enquiry report as contained in Annexure Nos. 10 and 12 and the matter is remitted back to the present Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya being enquiry officer to hold departmental enquiry afresh and denovo. It is made clear that the petitioner must cooperate in the said departmental proceeding and if he chooses to not to do so, the enquiry officer shall be at liberty to proceed ex-parte and submit his enquiry report but only after discussing the evidence on record for arriving his conclusion in respect of charges to have been either proved or not established. The denovo enquiry being directed under this order, however, must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and a final order thereon will be passed by Director, Secondary Education in next four months. In order to expedite the matter, this Court would direct the petitioner to 5 appear before the enquiry officer on 25th of October, 2010 on which day the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya being the Enquiry Officer shall fix the next date of enquiry and would, thereafter, conduct the departmental proceeding within the time framed as indicated above. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)