IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1849 of 2000 BINOD KUMAR Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 07 31.3.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.10.1998 visiting him with the major punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, censure and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the memo of charges by his further reply, appended as Annexure-5 the petitioner had requested for documentary evidence mentioned in the memo of charges. Neither was this made available to him nor was the enquiry report given. No second show-cause notice was given to the petitioner of the proposed punishment on basis of such an enquiry report. This Court on perusal of the supplementary objection filed by the petitioner 2 before the Enquiry Officer finds that petitioner specifically refers to the charges and has requested for documents in support of the charges. The respondents have chosen not to bring the enquiry report on record also to enable the Court to adjudicate on the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that if, during the enquiry itself the petitioner had raised demand for certain documents arising out of the charges, the Enquiry Officer was required to consider and pass reasoned order thereupon. Prima facie, it appears to this Court that the documents called for by the petitioner upon which the memo of charges were based cannot be rejected outright as superfluous and /or not germane. These are issues which could have been decided by the Enquiry Officer, and subsequently also if the petitioner had been given a copy of the enquiry report along with a second show-cause notice of the punishment proposed. In absence of this procedure having been followed the impugned order dated 5.10.1998 is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. In view of the fact that the allegations were of alleged negligence in discharge of duties by 3 not inspecting Government Hospitals and collection of samples in his capacity as a Drug Inspector with no allegations of defalcation causing financial loss to the Government, acts of moral turpitude impinging on the integrity of the Government servant, considering that the petitioner has retired in the year 2004/2005, this Court is not persuaded that the present is a fit case to expose him to further harassment in the evening of his life by remitting the matter. The impugned order of punishment having been set aside, the petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits. The writ application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)