IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5136 of 2009 Surendra Jha Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 2/ 01/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the Vidhan Sabha. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.2009 dismissing him from service under the Bihar Vidhan Sabha Secretariat (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1964. It is submitted that after the enquiry concluded, the petitioner was given a second show cause notice on 23.3.2009 which was served upon him on 24.3.2009. The impugned order has been passed the very next day. One day’s time to file a reply to the show cause notice by any stretch of imagination cannot be considered reasonable. It was only an empty formality with a serious consequence of depriving the petitioner a valuable right to defend himself and satisfy the disciplinary authority of his innocence or otherwise. There is a serious procedural defect in the decision making process. The impugned order should be set aside and the petitioner reinstated in service under suspension till a fresh order is not passed. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that if the enquiry does not suffer from any procedural 2 infirmity, a decision making infirmity at a latter stage shall not be sufficient justification to direct reinstatement under suspension. The Court is satisfied that grant of one day’s time to file a reply to the show cause cannot be held to be reasonable by any standards. The phrase ‘justice may not only be done, but must appear to be done’ aptly applies. The petitioner had to be given a reasonable time to collect his thoughts seek advice and to prepare his defence and then present it before the disciplinary authority. The question is not whether the defence would have been acceptable or not. The question is whether he was given the opportunity to prepare himself for persuading the disciplinary authority that another view of his exoneration was also possible. The impugned order dated 25.3.2009 is accordingly set aside. Since the disciplinary authority has every jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief to the petitioner, if he is otherwise satisfied, the Court is not persuaded at this stage to direct consequent reinstatement under suspension, in view of the infirmity in the decision making process. But, because the Court is not granting the latter relief, it does consider it appropriate to give suitable directions that the 3 petitioner may file his reply to the second show cause notice within a maximum period of four weeks from today. If it is not filed within four weeks from today, the respondents are under no obligation to consider the same. In that event the impugned order dated 25.3.2009 shall require no interference and the writ application shall be deemed to have been dismissed. If the petitioner files his reply within the period indicated, let the respondents consider the same within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of submission of reply by the petitioner. The impugned order is directed to be kept in abeyance in the meantime. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)