IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12137 of 2002 KAILASH PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.12588 of 2002 DINESH PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.12605 of 2002 RAJESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.12780 of 2002 LAKSHMAN MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03 18.03.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State. Counter affidavit has been filed only in C.W.J.C. No. 12605 of 2002. The issue of law arising for consideration is common in this batch of writ applications and, therefore, learned counsel for the parties have argued their cases on a common platform to enable the Court to dispose off this batch of writ applications by common order. This Court shall take the necessary facts from C.W.J.C. No. 12137 of 2002 for purposes of 2 convenience. The petitioners were proceeded departmentally on allegations of release of salary to persons who are allegedly fake appointees. In the departmental proceedings, the Enquiry Officer did not return any finding of guilt, but stated that it was not possible for him to make up his mind that the petitioners had acted deliberately but that the issues appeared to be circumstantial. On such an enquiry report with no positive finding of guilt, a second show- cause notice for punishment was issued, whereafter order of punishment were passed dated 30.9.2002, common to all the writ applications by which inter alia certain recoveries have been ordered also from the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12847 of 2004 which in tern places reliance on C.W.J.C. No. 510 of 2003 and C.W.J.C. No. 12346 of 2003. Similar matters have also been decided in C.W.J.C. No. 13070 of 2002, C.W.J.C. No. 13890 of 2002 and C.W.J.C. No. 12611 of 2003. The common thread that emerges from the aforesaid orders of this Court, in the present controversy, are that the second show-cause notice has been issued by the Chief Engineer who was 3 himself under a cloud and was himself subjected to departmental proceedings with regard to the very same allegedly fake appointees. This Court has, therefore, held that a person who was himself tainted and was the subject matter of a departmental enquiry on the same allegations could not have visited the petitioner with the punishment. Furthermore, this Court finds that there is no positive finding of guilt in the enquiry report. The second show-cause notice issued to the petitioners appears to raising an issue beyond the charges. The second show-cause notice also does not contain a brief discussion of the reasons for which the disciplinary authority was satisfied contrary to the recording of the Enquiry Officer that the materials were sufficient to arrive at a finding of guilt. This batch of writ applications has, therefore, to be allowed in light of the earlier decisions of this Court referred to above. Learned counsel for the State, on examination of the aforesaid orders has fairly found it difficult to distinguish the case of the petitioners from the same. The order of punishment dated 30.9.2002 are accordingly set aside in all the writ applications. 4 Deductions made, if any shall be returned to the petitioners forthwith. Let the order of this Court be complied in all aspects within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)