IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12479 of 2009 ABHIRAM JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 5.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The short issue for consideration in this case revolves around the question of non-furnishing of the enquiry report in pursuance of the departmental proceedings whereafter punishment has followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no copy of the enquiry report was furnished along with the second show cause notice. The petitioner was left with no option but to file his reply without the same. Thereupon followed the order of punishment. The departmental proceedings being vitiated by procedural irregularities in non-furnishing of the enquiry report, the order of punishment is not sustainable. Counsel for the State submits that whether the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner or not along with the second show cause notice is a question of fact and he is unable to address the Court without instruction, but if the enquiry report was not furnished, the petitioner may be entitled to be furnished a copy of the same with opportunity to submit his reply to the second show cause notice afresh whereafter decision may be taken in accordance with law. But, if the second show cause notice did furnish the enquiry report to him his remedy lies in an appeal. Additionally, it is urged that the question of no prejudice 2 having been caused to the petitioner also arises since he filed his reply to the second show cause notice. To this Court, failure to raise any objection at the stage of the departmental enquiry and invocation of the principal of no prejudice cause to the delinquent shall have its own distinction with the requirement to furnish a copy of the enquiry report at a subsequent stage of the departmental proceeding. While at the stage of enquiry the onus was on the delinquent to raise objections, after the enquiry is concluded, it is the obligation of the authorities to furnish the enquiry report to the delinquent. The authorities cannot be permitted to urge that though they have defaulted in performance of their own legal obligations, the benefit of the same should also ennure to that by invocation of the theory of no prejudice. The law stands equally settled where an authority is obliged to furnish a document to the delinquent, the fact that it was not furnished to him by the authorities but was obtained by him from other sources shall not ennure to the benefit of the authorities to absolve them of their responsibility in law. On the facts of the present case, this Court is satisfied that the order of punishment dated 30.3.2009 in its present form is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside for the limited purpose and in accordance with the directions given hereinafter, but shall not tantamount to reinstatement of the petitioner. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority from the stage of completion of the departmental enquiry. The 3 disciplinary authority is obliged to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order before him. The petitioner is then obliged to file his reply to the second show cause notice afresh within a period of four weeks from the date that the disciplinary authority makes available the copy of the enquiry report to him. The authorities shall then be at liberty to pass fresh appropriate orders thereafter in accordance with law. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)