IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.393 of 2009 Hareshwar Kumar Singh . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2/ 27/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner who held the post of an Assistant Jailor is aggrieved by the order dated 2.4.2008 dismissing him from the said post. It has been affirmed in appeal by order dated 17.10.2008. Originally five charges were framed against the petitioner on 2.7.2005. A supplementary charge was added on 9.2.2006. Of the total six charges, by an enquiry report dated 25.12.2007 the petitioner has been exonerated of charges 1, 2 and 5 and he has been found guilty of charges 3, 4 and 6. A second show cause notice was duly replied to whereafter the final order of punishment, affirmed in appeal, has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the departmental enquiry no witnesses were examined and no documents exhibited. There cannot be said to have been a departmental proceeding in accordance with law as held in repeated judicial pronouncements. This fatal flaw in procedures for conduct of the proceeding vitiates the finding of guilt arrived at on the so called proved charges. 2 The fact that no procedural irregularity may have been alleged either in the reply to the show cause or in the Memo. of Appeal does not detract from the right of the petitioner to raise that issue in the writ petition as it shall go to the very root of the departmental proceeding. There can be no two opinions that the procedures in a departmental proceeding are required to be followed with fairness and reasonableness failing which it may affect the final order that may be passed in the departmental proceeding. But, it is not every procedure or step in a departmental proceeding which may prove fatal. What is the nature of evidence and the mode, method and content of proof required is a matter which shall depend upon individual cases and the charges contained therein. The question of prejudice has to be specifically raised, urged and pleaded by the delinquent. If he does not raise such an objection, at any stage, and on the contrary participates, raises his defence, all of which is fully considered, he cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner. If the findings in the enquiry report are based on materials and considers the defence to arrive at a reasoned conclusion, it shall not be the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the same. In a departmental proceeding the findings are based on a preponderance of probability based on materials available, including the defence. A case where 3 evidence is admitted behind the back of the delinquent, liberty to raise defence is denied or is rendered useless by failing to furnish documents on which the charges are based, or if it is not supplied despite a demand made, prejudicing the defence are entirely different matters. Presently such is not the case. No procedural irregularity has been alleged in the reply to the show cause, much less during proceedings itself. The Memo. of Appeal also does not allege any procedural irregularity. It is not the domain of the Writ Court to sit as a super appellate authority over departmental authorities to re-scrutinize and re-assess the evidence and findings to decipher if any other finding is possible or not. The Court has been taken through the findings 3, 4 and 6 of the enquiry officer. The Court does not find any infirmity with the same requiring interference in exercise of powers of judicial review in an order arising out of a departmental proceeding. In fact, the Court is satisfied that charges 3 and 6 appear to be extremely serious. The Court finds no error in the impugned orders calling for interference. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)