IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11311 of 2005 1. JAY PRAKASH NARAYAN SINHA, SON OF LATE RAGHUNANDAN SAHAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PRAMPUR, P.S.-BELAGANJ, DISTRICT-GAYA ……………. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD ………………….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 03. 26.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of an Order, dated 26.05.2005, issued by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad, whereby he has been terminated from service in a Departmental Proceeding, initiated against him. Petitioner alleged that the most severest punishment of termination from service has been imposed without following procedure laid down under Rule 55A of Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule ad well as Rule 167 of Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rule. Petitioner was posted as Typist-cum-Clerk at Legal Section at Collectoriate, Jehanabad. He was placed under suspension in contemplation of Departmental Proceeding for the charge that 14 vouchers, amounting to Rs. 8,975 /- were placed by 2 him, making forged signature of the then District Magistrate, Arunesh Chawla. The charges framed in the Departmental Proceeding, furnished to the petitioner vide Memo No. 62, dated 17.01.2002 for submitting his show-cause. Petitioner’s case is that repeatedly he requested for supply of relevant documents. Firstly, at the time of filing of show- cause and again at the time of filing of second show- cause on submission of enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer had directed to supply the documents to the petitioner, such as the alleged vouchers, on which petitioner has said to have put forged signature of the District Magistrate as well as the letter of the then District Magistrate, Arunesh Chawla, in which he has refused to extend that signature on those vouchers were put by him. Aurnesh Chawla in this letter has stated that the signature on those documents were forged documents as such the petitioner should be departmentally proceeded and disciplinary action be taken against him. Specific case of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report without giving him an opportunity of filing proper show-cause and 3 without supplying necessary documents. The charge was proved against him on presumption and conjectures. Even the then District Magistrate was not asked to appear in the Departmental Proceeding, which should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to examine or cross-examine him. The charges were found to be proved, merely for the reason that petitioner had deposited Rs. 8,975 against the said vouchers. It was considered as an admission on the part of the petitioner, so far as the alleged charges are concerned. However, petitioner’s case is that this amount was deposited by him on protest, subject to the condition that when the vouchers will be passed in future this amount will be returned back to him. Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the State is completely silent so far furnishing of relevant document to the petitioner at the time of filing of first show-cause as well as second show-cause is concerned. There is no statement that even the vouchers on which it is alleged that the petitioner has put forged signature of the then District Magistrate, were not shown to him. There is no denial in the Counter Affidavit also that the letter 4 issued by the then District Magistrate, Jehanabad dated 16.12.2011 was even served or supplied to the petitioner for preparation of second show-cause. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is well settled law that if an employee is being prosecuted for specific charge, there must be a proper enquiry and that proper enquiry needs that the employee must be provided proper opportunity to defend himself in case he needs supply of some document for furnishing his show-cause in order to prepare his defence. But, if the Department fails to furnish such documents that in itself is sufficient for holding that proper opportunity was not provided to the employee in the Departmental Proceeding. It has also been submitted by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner that Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India has specified the procedure to be followed in a Departmental Proceeding, especially when severest punishment like termination of service is going to be imposed against the petitioner. Considering the admission in the Counter Affidavit regarding non furnishing of document, non-examination of the then District Magistrate, who denied his signature on the 5 vouchers and non-availability of proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, it is sufficient for holding that the impugned order, dated 26.05.2005 was issued by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad in complete violation of the procedure laid down in Rule 55A of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Rule 167 of Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rule. The petitioner could not have been terminated from his service in a Departmental Proceeding without following the proper procedure as provided under the Rule. For such reasons I find that the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Accordingly, it is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, Jehanabad for conducting the Departmental Proceeding afresh. Petitioner, in the meantime, will be allowed to join his service with all consequential benefits till the date the Departmental Proceeding is finally concluded and a proper order is passed. The Departmental Enquiry must be concluded within six months from the date of production / communication of this Order. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Application is disposed of. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)