IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4004 of 2010 NARAYAN JHA . Versus PRAMOD TIWARY . ----------- 02. 18.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the opposite party. It is not in dispute between the parties that subsequently the departmental proceedings have been concluded and an enquiry report has been submitted. The order of the writ Court was nothing but a reiteration of the fundamental principles of service jurisprudence governing disciplinary proceedings. Documents relevant to the enquiry sought to be relied upon have to be furnished to the delinquent. Conversely, the delinquent does not have the right to ask for any document that he may desire. If any, frivolous documents are asked for, circumstances warranting on facts, no separate orders for rejection of the request may be required. Whether an inspection of voluminous documents was allowed or not, when the parties make allegations and counter allegations against each other are all questions of fact. Whatever the grounds that have been urged in support of the contempt application and in rebuttable thereof are all questions of fact of what may have transpired during the course of the enquiry and lies 2 concealed in the discussion contained in the enquiry report itself. Procedural violations can defeat a departmental enquiry. Conversely, the principles of no- prejudice having been caused can also be invoked. These are all matters to be considered by the disciplinary authority acting on the enquiry report in light of any objections that may be made by the petitioner with regard to non-compliance of procedures. It is for the petitioner to file his reply to the show cause noticed that may be issued or has been issued to him by the disciplinary authority. The contempt application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)