Letters Patent Appeal No.328 Of 2000 Appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2000 passed in CWJC No.4845 of 1997 by a Bench of this Court. -------- RAMENDRA NATH SHOME .. Appellant Versus THE BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. .. Respondents FOR THE APPELLANT : M/s Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr.Advocate, Mukesh Kumar No.2 & Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocates FOR THE BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.: Mr. Tara Nath Jha, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Shiva Kirti Singh & Jayanandan Singh, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, the respondent. Appellant/writ petitioner was a Driver of a Bus of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to `as the Corporation’). According to the charge sheet dated 11.3.1992, served upon the writ petitioner, - 2 - on 25.1.1992 petitioner was at Sitamarhi Depot along with Bus No.5062, which was a Deluxe service from Sitamarhi to Muzaffarpur. After some time petitioner obtained a Challan showing Nil from the Time Keeper on the ground that there was no passenger. Thereafter, he waited for some time till the arrival of train. After some passengers had boarded the Bus, he refused to listen to the request of the Time Keeper to return the Challan so that the passengers who had boarded the Bus may be booked. Allegedly the petitioner refused to hand over the Challan and proceeded with the Bus after stating that he will get the passengers booked at the next Depot at Dumra. He also misbehaved with the Time Keeper and abused him. According to the charges the petitioner’s aforesaid conduct was an act of gross misconduct and was also intended to cause loss of revenue to the Corporation. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. According to facts noted in the judgment under appeal the writ petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer and hence enquiry had to be held ex parte. But the - 3 - annexures available on record show that in the enquiry some of the witnesses were cross-examined by the writ petitioner. On the basis of enquiry, the Conducting Officer submitted the enquiry report. On the basis thereof writ petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 30.7.1996 passed by the Divisional Manager, Phulwari Depot of the Corporation. The order of dismissal was challenged by the writ petitioner before the Appellate Authority, which confirmed the order of punishment by order dated 28.1.1997. Before the Writ Court two main submissions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner were – (i) the punishment of dismissal was excessive and (ii) the order of dismissal was vitiated in law because a copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the writ petitioner before passing of order of dismissal. On considering the relevant facts the Writ Court held that the punishment of dismissal could not be held to be excessive only because the Inquiry Officer had recommended some other punishment. In respect of omission to furnish a - 4 - copy of the enquiry report it was held that a copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner shortly after the order of punishment was passed and on that basis petitioner had preferred his appeal which received attention of the Appellate Authority and then the order of punishment was confirmed. The Writ Court held that petitioner had failed to show any prejudice caused to him on account of failure to supply a copy of the enquiry report before passing of the order of punishment. Before us it was submitted that some of the witnesses chose not to support the allegations levelled by the concerned Time Keeper and secondly it was submitted that reading of the enquiry report would show that the finding against the writ petitioner is not in definite terms and appears to be tentative. Lastly, it was submitted that in the facts of the case it should be held that the writ petitioner has been prejudiced on account of non-supply of a copy of the enquiry report before passing of the order of dismissal. - 5 - So far as the first contention is concerned, it is not for the Writ Court to see the adequacy of evidence adduced before the Inquiry Officer. The relevant annexures containing statement of witnesses show that the person who levelled the allegations, namely Surendra Nath Sharma, has supported the allegations and it is not the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that there is no material to sustain the charges. The enquiry report is not by a Legal Expert but by a person who appears conversant with the procedure of the Corporation and he has accepted the legal position that booking of tickets for the vehicle of the Corporation is the responsibility of the Time Keeper and not others. This amounts to clear rejection of the stand of the writ petitioner in his defence that he suggested for issue of tickets for passengers not through the Time Keeper of Sitamarhi Depot but from another Depot. Apparently, such authority is not vested with the writ petitioner as Driver. The enquiry report further mentions that the charged Driver might have misbehaved as - 6 - the allegation made. No doubt, the finding of misbehaviour is not in definite terms but thereafter the concluding lines are to the effect that the charged Driver appears to be guilty. The language may not be very happy but from the contents of the enquiry report it is clear that charges have been fully proved. It is not possible to accept the contention that according to the enquiry report available on record the charges were not found true. So far as effect of non-supply of a copy of the enquiry report before passing of the order of punishment is concerned, the law is well settled that unless such failure has caused prejudice which can be taken care of by only setting aside the order of punishment and remanding the matter for giving fresh opportunity to the delinquent to submit his comment in respect to the enquiry report, such failure by itself is not sufficient for setting aside the order of punishment passed by a competent authority on the basis of findings arrived at in a properly held enquiry. In this case the enquiry report was admittedly made available to the writ - 7 - petitioner soon after passing of order of punishment and on that basis he appealed against the order of punishment which stands considered by the Appellate Authority. Considering all facts and circumstances, we are not persuaded to take a different view in the matter. The Writ Court appears to be correct in holding that the writ petitioner has failed to prove any prejudice to him on account of omission to serve a copy of enquiry report before passing of order of punishment. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but without cost. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J. ) ( Jayanandan Singh, J. ) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 13th May, 2008 A.H. /N.A.F.R.