Patna High Court CWJC No.9228 of 2010 (3) dt.19-10-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9228 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Mukhdeo Singh S/O Ramjee Singh At Present Posted As Deputy Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director Administration-Cum-Additional Secretary Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh Mr. Shyama Kant Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc13) ====================================================== 3 19-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner who was posted as the District Superintendent of Education at Purnea at the relevant point of time, was departmentally proceeded with for haivng given conditional approval in context of certain appointment of teachers in private institutions. An enquiry report came to be submitted on 26.3.2010 in pursuance of which a second show cause notice dated 22.4.2010 has been issued to him by the Director, Administration-cum-Addl. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the second show cause notice is without jurisdiction as under Rule-18 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 ((hereinafter referred to as the Rules) the disciplinary authority alone was competent to issue such notice. Patna High Court CWJC No.9228 of 2010 (3) dt.19-10-2011 Learned counsel for the State counters the submission from the counter affidavit to submit that the disciplinary authority was the Principal Secretary of the Department and with whose approval the second show cause notice had been issued. In view of the discussion contained hereinafter the Court does not consider it necessary to go into the question at this stage as to who is the disciplinary authority and whether the show cause notice had been issued with the approval of the disciplinary authority as it finds that the writ petition can be disposed off on another ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submits from the enquiry report that the enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the presenting officer never took a definite stand in the enquiry with regard to the charges. The petitioner had asserted that he never gave concurrence for the appointment, but gave a conditional concurrence subject to verification of the certificates. The enquiry officer records that this has not been denied by the presenting officer and who offered no comments on the aspect. The presenting officer had not placed any files in this regard before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer in the aforesaid background came to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be stated to have acted with any foul intentions. It may only be noticed that the charge against the petitioner was that he had granted concurrence contrary to the departmental instructions. There is no finding in the enquiry Patna High Court CWJC No.9228 of 2010 (3) dt.19-10-2011 which departmental instructions were violated by the petitioner. In fact, the Court is satisfied that the charge itself cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with law when the presenting officer did not put forth any specific opinion and did not place necessary documents and files in support of the charge. If that be so, it is difficult to appreciate the nature of second show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 22.4.2010. If the respondents were of the opinion that the findings of the enquiry officer based on the materials produced during the enquiry were not justified, they had the opportunity and the discretion to proceed on a difference of opinion when the second show cause notice was required to mention the grounds for the same. The second show cause notice dated 22.4.2010 is therefore not sustainable in its present form. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law, as they may be advised, in pursuance of the enquiry report dated 26.3.2010 and conclude the departmental proceedings expeditiously preferably within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order provided the petitioner himself cooperates. The application is allowed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)