IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7214 of 2001 RAM PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 15.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the state. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally. Punishment was imposed on 13.12.1999, stopping two increments with cumulative effect debarring promotion for two years and no posting to be given in the division for next two years. The appeal preferred has been rejected by order dated 16.2.2001. A preliminary enquiry report led to the initiation of the departmental proceedings. It is the case of the petitioner that the alleged withdrawal in question stated to have been done fraudulently was by his predecessor, and for which the respondents have already lodged a first information report against his predecessor. Be that as it may, it appears that the petitioner was sought to be issued notice of a memo of charges based on preliminary enquiry report on 30.7.1998. That in fact it was not accompanied by any memo of charges or evidence is apparent from the fact that the petitioner as early as on 17.11.1998 protested that he has not been given the memo of charges or the memo of evidence. Nonetheless, departmental proceedings continued leading to the order of punishment on 13.12.1999. The petitioner preferred an appeal, appended at Annexure- 10 to the writ application. Paragraph 15,16,18 and 19 are crucial. It - 2 - specifically urges that the memo of charges and the documents sought to be relied upon in support of the memo of charges were never served upon him despite request made also before the enquiry officer, apart from the allegations made that no departmental proceedings in accordance with law were conducted as the presenting officer did not participate. After having gone through the memo of appeal, to this Court the non-participation of the presenting officer is a non-issue. The petitioner had raised a very serious issue with regard to supply of only the preliminary enquiry report and non-supply of the charge- sheet, the documents on which the charges were based and the memo of evidence. It was urged that he was unable to file his statement of defence in absence of the same. These issues were specifically raised by him during the enquiry. There is no gainsaying that a departmental enquiry commences only on the issuance of a charge-sheet which has to be accompanied by documents and evidence sought to be relied upon to prove the charges. That the departmental enquiry may have been based on a preliminary enquiry report is an entirely different issue and does not dispense with the requirements of a memo of charges, a sine qua none for initiation of a departmental enquiry. There can be no departmental enquiry in law without a charge-sheet. Such serious issues with regard to the basic flaw in the departmental proceeding, has been dealt with in a very casual and cavalier fashion by the appellate authority. It does not at all deal with the allegations of the - 3 - petitioner that no memo of charges were served upon him, no documents were given, no memo of evidence was placed. That this despite he had raised these issues before the Enquiry Officer. No evidence appears to have been led by the presenting officer and no second show cause notice of the proposed punishment along with the enquiry report was ever given to the petitioner. On the facts of the case, this court is satisfied that there was, in fact, no departmental proceeding against the petitioner in law. Presumably, for these reasons even the appellate authority considered it prudent not to deal with these issues in the order dated 16.2.2001. The order of punishment dated 13.12.1999 and the order of the appellate authority dated 16.2.2001 are, therefore, not sustainable in law and are accordingly quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to the monetary benefits withheld as also for due consideration of his for promotion as if the order of punishment had never been passed. The writ application is allowed. HR ( Navin Sinha )