IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12285 of 2002 MD.JAMALUDDIN HUSSAIN MANSURI, SON OF MD. GAJI HUSSAIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MANSHA TOLA (NEAR RAILWAY GUMTI), POST-BETTIAH, P.S.-BETTIAH MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ………………………………………….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BETTIAH, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, BETTIAH, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER OF NARKATIAGANJ CIRCLE, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. …………………………………………. RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 11.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows : - “That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) for quashing the order dated 10.09.2002 by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, by which the appeal of petitioner against his dismissal has been rejected, and further for quashing the order as contained in letter no. 977 dated 22.10.2001, issued by the D.M., West Champaran at Bettiah. Whereby and whereunder the petitioner was dismissed from service as Revenue Karmachari, Narkatiaganj on nonest grounds. And further for direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service benefits. And/or for grant of any other appropriate relief(s) to the petitioner for which he may be found entitled in the eye of law.” 2 This writ application was filed on 30.10.2002 and a period of almost seven years has not been good enough and/or sufficient for the State to file its counter affidavit. It has to be noted that on 19.3.2009, this Court having noted the aforementioned negligence on the part of the State in filing the counter affidavit had directed for production of the original records of the departmental proceeding but that also has not been produced. In such a situation, this Court has to accept that whatever has been stated in the writ application remains uncontroverted and thus correct. Since the petitioner has made a categorical statement in paragraph no. 37 of the writ petition that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him and the impugned order was passed without even affording opportunity to meet the reasonings in the enquiry report, this Court following the ratio as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B.Karunakar & Ors. reported in 1993(4) SCC 727 would quash both the impugned 3 orders dated 22.10.2001(Annexure-1) and 10.9.2002(Annexure-2) and remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority namely Collector West Champaran Bettiah with a direction to him to proceed afresh from the stage of making available the enquiry report. Such enquiry report with a show cause notice must be supplied and served on the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and thereafter, the petitioner should file his reply within a period of next four weeks so that if at all the petitioner’s departmental proceeding has to be continued for the purposes of inflicting punishment that must come to an end in next four months of filing the reply/comments to the enquiry report by the petitioner. As this Court has quashed the order of punishment only on the ground of non-supply of the enquiry report the issue on the payment of salary or any other pecuniary benefit of the period of service of the petitioner will abide by the further decision in the departmental proceeding. 4 At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had already completed the age of superannuation and therefore, as he has gone without payment of salary for all these period on account of the impugned order of dismissal from service, the steps even in completing the departmental proceedings must be taken up expeditiously. This Court has already indicated that the departmental proceeding upon quashing of the order of punishment from the stage of supply of enquiry report has to proceed afresh and to be completed within a time span as indicated above and therefore, as the petitioner’s retirement benefit also would now depend on the result of the departmental proceeding, such a decision must be taken in the fixed time limit as directed above in this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)