IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6431 of 2001 RAJENDRA RAI S/O LATE BHAGWAT PRASAD R/O VILLAGE- CHAINPUR, DHAKA, P.S. DHAKA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN ……..PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR REV. ADMININSTRATION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DY. SECRETARY-CUM-SPECIAL OFFICER, REV.ADMINISTRATION, WATER RESOURCES DEPT. BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DY. COLLECTOR, REV. DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES DEPT. BETTIAH. 6. DY. COLLECTOR, REV, DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR……..RESPODENTS. ----------- 04 14.12.2010 The petitioner was posted as Nazir in Revenue Division, Bettiah. It appears on 27.07.1990, the Director Revenue Administration made a surprise inspection of Revenue Division Office at Bettiah. Petitioner being Nazir, was asked to produce the cash book. He expressed his inability on the ground that it was with the Deputy Collector, Bettiah for his signature and the Deputy Collector had been shifted to the mental asylum at Ranchi. The Director Revenue Administration drew adverse inference against the petitioner and a departmental proceeding was initiated. Petitioner alleges that in the departmental proceeding, he asked for the records to be shown to him but in spite of orders passed by the Enquiry Officer, necessary and relevant records were not disclosed to him and the Enquiry Officer precede an ex-parte and gave his report. Upon report being submitted, petitioner was issued a second show cause proposing his dismissal based upon the 2 findings of the Enquiry officer. The order of the disciplinary authority shows that no show cause was filed and even the second show cause could not be served. Petitioner disputes this fact. He asserts that he filed his show cause protesting that as he had not been given or shown the documents necessary for his reply, he could not defend his case and the enquiry was bad. Accordingly, in absence of the second show cause on record, the disciplinary authority agreeing with the enquiry report passed the order for dismissal of petitioner from service. The record reveals that as between the enquiry report and the order of disciplinary authority, the matter remained pending for six years. The matter having been brought before the appellate authority on appeal being filed, the Appellate Authority assigned the matter to Special Secretary who perused the records, heard the parties and gave his opinion. The opinion as given by the Secretary, who was not the Appellate Authority, was merely ratified by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority stand vitiated. He submits that so far as disciplinary authority is concerned, he has proceeded on non est grounds and in violation of principles of natural justice, the whole decision making process stands vitiated. So far as Appellate Authority is concerned, he points out that the hearing was done by one authority and the order has been passed by another. These being quasi judicial appellate proceedings, this could not be done. It is well settled that he who hears, must decide. 3 Having considered the matter, in my view, basically the controversies relate to factual dispute in course of the disciplinary proceedings. It would suffice if petitioner is permitted to raise all these issues before the Appellate Authority because the order of the Appellate Authority is per se bad. The Appellate Authority lost sight of the fact that he was acting in a quasi judicial capacity and exercising a statutory jurisdiction. He could not have left the matter to be dealt administratively by his subordinate only to be ratified by him. Such order is no order in the eye of law. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority with a direction to consider the matter on merits after hearing the parties and take a decision at an early date upon all the grounds as taken by the petitioner. The decision must be taken at the earliest but not later than six months from the date of production of a copy of this Court. This writ petition thus stands disposed of. Shahzad (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J )