IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.630 of 2002 ANIL KUMAR JHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF SHRI LAXMIKANT JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHESHPUR, P.O. BALIA, P.S. BHAWANIPUR, DISTRICT PURNEA AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT BASIC SCHOOL, GERABARI KORHA (KATIHAR)………………………………… PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIVISIONAL ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT BASIC SCHOOL THROUGH REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PURNEA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KATIHAR 7. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, KATIHAR 8. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT BASIC SCHOOL, GERABANI KARHA (KATIHAR)………RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh,Sr. Advocate with M/s Manoj Kumar, S. Parasmani & Pramod Kumar, Advocates For the State : Standing Counsel No.IX **** 5. 07.09.2009 When the writ application was heard on the last date, after arguments, the issue arising in the matter crystallizes to pleadings made in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the writ application to the effect that, before issuing punishment order as contained in Annexure-12, whether a copy of the enquiry report was - 2 - furnished to the petitioner or not and whether any opportunity was given to him to file his show cause/representation challenging findings of the enquiry officer for consideration of the disciplinary authority or not. Since the counter affidavit which was filed in this case on that date was sworn in 2002, learned counsel for the respondents was given another opportunity to file a fresh counter affidavit specifically dealing with the pleadings made by petitioner in paragraphs 25 and 26 thereof. Today, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed, in paragraph 8 of which it has been admitted that copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to petitioner by the disciplinary authority before the impugned order of punishment was passed against him. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the said admission of the respondents in paragraph 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed today, there is admittedly violation of Principles of Natural Justice in the matter and punishment order has to be quashed solely on that ground. - 3 - Learned counsel for the respondents submits that non-furnishing of the enquiry report ipso facto does not render the punishment order bad unless a prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner. From the records it is clear that there were some reports of the Headmaster and the District Education Officer, Katihar on the basis of which enquiry was initiated. In the enquiry the said reports were furnished to the petitioner and on conclusion of the enquiry, charges were found to be correct and as a consequence, the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer, namely, Sub-Divisional Education Officer, to the disciplinary authority, recommending punishment to the petitioner. Apparently, although the enquiry officer did make up his mind on the basis of the said reports of the Headmaster and the District Education Officer in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner, but since the matter had to be considered by the disciplinary authority, namely, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnea Division, with regard to sufficiency of materials for holding the opinion - 4 - of the enquiry officer with regard to the charges as correct, petitioner was required to be given an opportunity to show that these reports of the Headmaster and the District Education Officer were wrongly accepted by the enquiry officer and his conclusion on that basis that the charges were correct was wrong. Non- furnishing of the enquiry report and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, thus, apparently caused prejudice to him. In the circumstances, submission of the learned counsel for the State is devoid of merit and is rejected. Since it is admitted position that no opportunity was given to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority to file his show cause/representation by furnishing copy of the enquiry report to him, there has been violation of Principles of Natural Justice and, therefore, the impugned order of punishment as contained in Annexure-12 is not sustainable in law and fit to be quashed. In the result, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order of punishment as contained in Annexure-12 is quashed with a - 5 - liberty to the respondents to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and give him an opportunity to file his show cause /representation against the same and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the materials available on record and stand taken by the petitioner in his said show cause/representation, if any. The writ application is, thus, allowed. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)