IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14810 of 2009 1. MITHILESH KUMAR VERMA S/O BIRENDRA PRATAP NARAYAN R/O GOSHAIN TOLA, NORTH PATLIPUTRA COLONY, P.S. PATLIPUTRA, DISTT. PATNA AT PRESENT ASSISTANT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION, UDAKISHUNGANJ (MADHEPURA) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 2. JOINT SECRETARY (MANAGEMENT) WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., PURNEA, DISTT. PURNEA, BIHAR 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CUM ENQUIRING OFFICER OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPTT. OF WATER RESOURCES, PURNEA 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CANAL CIRCLE, PURNEA, DISTT. PURNEA 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION DIVISION, MURLIGANJ, MADHEPURA ----------- 2/ 20/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been subjected to departmental proceedings and memo. of charges have been served. The submission is two fold. Firstly annexures-1 and 2 to the memo. of charges had not been supplied. Secondly, the petitioner has asked for certain documents by his request dated 4.9.2009 sent by speed post. The enquiry officer has requested the Deputy Secretary of the Department to make available necessary documents to the petitioner and simultaneously he has been asked to file his reply to the show cause. There is no specific pleading in the writ application with regard to no enclosures being annexed to the memo. of charges. This raises a presumption under Section-114(e) of the Evidence Act against the petitioner. Nonetheless, Mr. P.K. Verma appearing on 2 behalf of the State submits that to facilitate early disposal of the departmental enquiry fresh copies of annexures-1 and 2 shall be given to the petitioner no sooner that he appears on the next date fixed in the enquiry. Any departmental proceedings visualizes either supply or inspection of documents if they be voluminous. Likewise, the delinquent is not entitled to every document that he may ask for. It is only relevant documents, that affect his defence, which need be supplied. The delinquent has to demonstrate the relevance of the documents to his defence when the authorities are required to deal with his contentions of relevance and either supply the documents or pass a reasoned order why they consider that it was not relevant. Undoubtedly, supply of necessary documents is a compelling necessity in a departmental proceeding as otherwise the proceeding may end up as being faulty. No orders for any change of enquiry officer can be passed on assumptions. If the petitioner so desires and prefers an application, it is for the disciplinary authority to consider the same in accordance with law and not for this Court to pre-judge 3 the same. It is expected that the departmental proceedings shall now proceed expeditiously in accordance with law and for which the petitioner shall also adequately cooperate. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observations. If the petitioner has any grievances with regard to his salary, it is for the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law if the petitioner represents with regard to the same. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)