Letters Patent Appeal No.435 OF 2006 ******* Against the order dated 23.5.2006 passed in CWJC no. 12782 of 2004. ******* THE DEPUTY DEVP.COMMISSIONER-CUM----Appellant CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Versus MD.MANJOOR ALAM & ORS-------------Respondents ******* For the Appellant : M/s Kumar Brajendra Narain & Shyam Bihari Singh For the State : Mr. Shambhu Nath, JC to GP X For Private Respondent : Mr. Narain Singh ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad JJ. On 12th April, 1990, a first information report was filed alleging that the petitioner-respondent is responsible for destruction of reports prepared by the Food Analyst in connection with some cases. The first information report was enquired into, which resulted in filing of a report in 2 final form. The employee of the Zila Parishad, who lodged the first information report, filed a protest petition challenging the report in final form submitted by the Police. The protest petition was treated as a complaint petition and thereon an enquiry was directed under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The enquiry conducted subsequently resulted in dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. Soon thereafter on 29th July, 1991 a charge sheet was issued against the respondent-petitioner containing almost identical charges. Thereby the petitioner- respondent was asked to file his reply to the charge sheet before the Enquiry Officer. As appears from the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, petitioner- respondent gave a reply to the charge sheet and thereby denied the charges. This 3 happened on 16th August, 1991. On 19th August, 1991 the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted a report and thereby opined that the charges against the petitioner-respondent stand proved. The enquiry report reveals that the opinion of the Enquiry Officer is based on many materials, but the Enquiry Officer has failed to indicate in the report the source of collection of those materials. In other words, the enquiry report is totally silent as to who produced those materials upon which the Enquiry Officer relied. The conclusion, therefore, would be that the Enquiry Officer himself collected those materials and produced them before himself and thereby acted, though ostensibly as Enquiry Officer, but also as Conducting Officer. The matter does not rest there. The enquiry report suggest that the Enquiry 4 Officer is of the view that certain documents, thus, collected contains the signature of the petitioner-respondent. There is not a single whisper in any part of the enquiry report as to how the Enquiry Officer gathered that those documents contained the signature of the petitioner- respondent. The further conclusion, therefore, would be that the Enquiry Officer, thus, acted also as a witness in the enquiry proceeding before him. This enquiry report resulted in an order dated 01st February, 1996 terminating the services of the petitioner-respondent. The petitioner-respondent then approached the Director, Panchayat Raj, Bihar, with an appeal against the order of dismissal dated 01st February, 1996 passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad. The appeal 5 was allowed. Despite the appeal having been allowed the benefits of the appellate order was not accorded to the petitioner- respondent and hence he approached this court. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to re-instate the petitioner- respondent without any delay with a further direction to pay all legal entitlements of the petitioner-respondent. 2. In the present appeal, although it has been contended that the findings of the learned Judge in the order under appeal that the order of dismissal was without holding any departmental enquiry was an error of fact, but the principal thrust was given that the Director, Panchayati Raj, Bihar, was not the appellate authority. No attempt has been made to establish that a departmental enquiry was made, except to bring on record the said enquiry report. The 6 report, as indicated above, suggests that the same was prepared by the enquiry Officer, but does not suggest holding of enquiry. We, accordingly, would not go into the question in this appeal whether, in law, the Director, Panchayati Raj, Bihar, was or was not the appellate authority in respect of an order passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, but we would only declare that the order dated 01st February, 1996 is void-ab-initio for the same is on the teeth of Article 311 of the Constitution of India in as much as the dismissal accorded by the said Order is without any Departmental Enquiry. We would, therefore, further declare that by said illegal order dated 01st February, 1996 the petitioner-respondent was prevented from discharging his duties attached to the post to which he was 7 entitled to serve. Accordingly, ignoring the said order, all benefits to which the petitioner-respondent is entitled to must be accorded to him in terms of the judgment and order under appeal. 3. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed with observations as above. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, The 20th August, 2008. AAhmad/ (NAFR).