CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1856 OF 1997 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India MD.SHAFIUDDIN ANSARI SON OF MD. SHARFUDDIN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- WHITE HOUSE COMPOUND, NEAR MIRZA GHALIB COLLEGE, GAYA, P.S. RAMPUR, DISTRICT- GAYA …… ( Petitioner). Versus. 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. THE BIHAR STATE HANDLOOM AND HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LTD. UDYOG BHAWAN, NEAR GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-800004,THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE BIHAR STATE HANDLOOM AND HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LTD., UDYOG BHAWAN, NEAR GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-800004 …... (Respondents) ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Farooque Moazzam, Advocate. For the State : Mr. R.K. Sinha, AC to SC-8. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N. Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. None appears on behalf of Bihar State Handloom Handicraft Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’). 2. Petitioner, at the relevant time served as Peon in the Corporation, is aggrieved by the order of the Managing Director of the Corporation contained in Memo No.1211 dated 17.12.1996, Annexure-9 whereunder he has been dismissed from the service of the Corporation after conclusion of the - 2 - Departmental Proceeding initiated against him. He is also aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 1215 dated 18.12.1996, Annexure 9/A passed by the Managing Director whereunder having reiterated the contents of the earlier order dated 17.12.1996, he has cancelled the said order on the ground that the said order erroneously indicate that the same has been passed by Sri. Fakhre Alam, the earlier Managing Director, although the same was also passed and signed by the then Managing Director Sri. Bishnu Prasad. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that reading together order bearing Memo No.1211 dated 17.12.1996 and subsequent order bearing Memo No. 1215 dated 18.12.1996 there may not be any difficulty in concluding that both the orders have been passed by Sri. Bishnu Prasad the then Managing Director without application of his mind as having passed the earlier order dated 17.12.1996 he signed the same on behalf of Sri. Fakhre Alam, although Sri. Fakhre Alam was not holding the post of Managing Director on 17.12.1996. Later, when Sri. Bishnu Prasad realized the aforesaid mistake, he again reiterated the contents of the order dated 17.12.1996 and passed subsequent order bearing Memo No. 1215 dated 18.12.1996 cancelling the earlier order. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that had Sri. Prasad applied his mind to the facts of the case he should have noticed the facts that he is signing the order dated 17.12.1996 - 3 - for Sri. Fakhre Alam, who was not the Managing Director on 17.12.1996 and occasion to reiterate and issue the corrigendum bearing Memo No.1215 dated 18.12.1996 may not have arisen at all. 4. On merits also counsel for the petitioner assailed the two orders with reference to the inquiry report served on him under letter dated 8.2.1996, Annexure-7 calling upon him to submit his show-cause reply by 10.2.1996. Petitioner received memo dated 8.2.1996 on 10.2.1996 at about 3:30 p.m. and to that effect he has mentioned in the margin of the memo dated 8.2.1996. Having received the memo dated 8.2.1996 on 10.2.1996 at 3:30 P.M. petitioner submitted his show-cause reply dated 12.2.1996 under registered post. The receipt showing dispatch under registered post is also affixed with the show-cause reply, Annexure-8. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while passing the order dated 17.12.1996 and the subsequent order dated 18.12.1996 the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 10.2.1996 does not appear to have been considered by the Managing Director as there is no reference of the plea raised by him in his show-cause reply dated 12.2.1996 under orders dated 17, 18.12.1996. 6. Having perused orders dated 17, 18.12.1996, Annexures- 9 & 9/A, I am satisfied that the Managing Director who passed the two orders did not consider the show-cause - 4 - reply filed by the petitioner dated 12.2.1996, Annexure-8. For failure to consider the show-cause reply filed by the petitioners, the two impugned orders dated 17, 18.12.1996 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Managing Director of the Corporation to reconsider the matter in the light of the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner dated 12.2.1996 and 4.4.1996 as contained in Annexures-8 and 8/A to this application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Patna High Court, Patna Dated 28th Sept., 2010 NAFR/M.I. Haque (V.N. Sinha, J.)