IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6832 of 2001 CHATURBHUJ THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 10.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the punishment dated 7.4.2001 dismissing him from service in pursuance of a departmental proceeding. Departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner, Junior Engineer, on allegation of having raised bills and obtained payment in respect of electrical works which in fact were never done. The enquiry report came to be submitted when by order dated 5.10.1991 he was dismissed from service. On 13.12.1995 in CWJC no.9117 of 1991 preferred by the petitioner assailing the punishment, this court held that no enquiry worth the name was held and an exparte enquiry report without opportunity of hearing was submitted. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner did not appear was negatived. The Enquiry Officer himself was not made available copies of various exhibits referred to in the charge sheet. No memo of evidence was made available to the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report was not made available before the order of punishment was passed. The respondents then decided to initiate fresh proceeding against the petitioner on the very same charge when the impugned order of dismissal dated 7.4.2001 has been passed. The fresh notice dated 21.3.1998 for the purpose at - 2 - annexure 3 specifically states that the petitioner was free to visit the regional office as also the Disciplinary authority in the event that he wanted to examine any document. It was for the petitioner to avail the opportunity or not. He filed his defence on 3.8.1999. No grievance was made that despite having demanded inspection of any document/documents it was denied to him. It has to be kept in mind that the respondents were only following the direction of the court in CWJC no.9117 of 1991. In fact the petitioner never filed any proper statement of defence but only stated that since the earlier order of punishment had been set aside there was no justification for a fresh departmental proceeding. The law stands well settled that where a departmental enquiry is held to be bad on ground of procedural infirmity, the entire proceeding is not vitiated but recommences from the stage that the irregularity occurred. It is the case of the respondents that fresh notices were given to the petitioner who was already reinstated in service including at his official address. Nonetheless he did not participate in the departmental proceeding. Before passing a fresh order of punishment, a second show cause notice was issued which he acknowledges was received on 29.3.2000. He assails the same in the present application filed on 21.5.2001 stating that the initiation of the second departmental proceeding and the second show notice suffers from illegality. What he does disclose to this court is that in fact he filed his reply to the second show cause notice on 6.4.2000 long before filing of the present writ application. - 3 - On the facts of the case this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has withheld and suppressed material information from this court and attempted to obtain a favourable order in that background to allege that the departmental proceeding was bad. The allegations are serious of having obtained payment for work not done. The Enquiry Officer has found him guilty. A fresh first information report has been lodged for the same for which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aware what has happened to the same. In the entirety of the matter, this Court is not persuaded that the impugned order of dismissal calls for interference. This writ application is accordingly, dismissed. shahid (Navin Sinha,J)