IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10906 of 2006 CHANDRIKA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr Nageshwar Pd Sinha For the respondent Corporation: M/S. R S Pradhan and Nirmal Kumar. ------------ 03. 26.08.2008 Vide order dated 12.2.2004 contained in annexure-7 three punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner, one of them being major in nature. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though he was exonerated of the so-called charges for which an enquiry was held, the disciplinary authority in his wisdom decided to impose punishments which are in breach of all canons of justice. He further states that the petitioner was not even served with a copy of the enquiry report and he had to obtain the same through Right to Information Act and the same therefore has been brought on record as ananexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit. There is no categorical denial of some of the averments made by the petitioner. If that is so, then an order of punishment which is major in nature cannot be imposed upon the petitioner without furnishing to him a copy of the enquiry report. The reason for disagreement with the enquiry officer as well as an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the petitioner. Since none of these have been done in the present case, the impugned order dated 12.2.2004 contained in annexure-7 is quashed. - 2 - Liberty however is granted to the respondents that if they are still interested in pursuing the matter then they shall have to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. The reason for disagreeing with such enquiry report and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has to be given before any order imposing punishment is passed against him. The writ application is allowed with the above liberty. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)