IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19950 of 2010 NIRBHAY KUMAR PANDEY Son of Late Janardhan Pandey, resident of Mohalla Dakhin Tola, P.S. Siwan Town, P.O. and District- Siwan. ------------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Siwan. 4. The Nagar Parishad Siwan through its councilors at Siwan. 5. The Sabhapati (Chairman), Nagar Parishad, Siwan. 6. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Siwan. 7. Sri Yasodanand Prasad son of Late Kedar Prasad, Member of Enquiry Committee and Ward Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Siwan. 8. Mrs. Ishrat Pravit Wife of Mr. Jamal Ahmad Member of Enquiry Committee and Ward Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Siwan. 9. Mr. Jaffar Hussain @ Jhama Mian, Member of Enquiry Committee and Ward Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Siwan. 10. Sri Devendra Gupta Son of Vijay Prasad, Member of Enquriy Committee and Ward Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Siwan. -----------Respondents. For the Petitioner:- Gajanan Arun, Advocate. For the State:- Anil Kumar Singh, J.C. to S.C.6 For the Nagar Parishad:- Ravi Bhushan Verma, Advocate. ------------------ 3. 17.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nagar Parishad as also learned counsel for the State of Bihar. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 8.9.2010 issued under the signature of the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated pursuant to the resolution no. 5 (Misc.) 13 dated 31.8.2010 taken by 2 general body of the Nagar Parishad and also for quashing of the said resolution. The admitted position is that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally on account of as many as 15 charges against him and the Executive Officer enquired in the matter and a report was sent on 17.5.2010. In the said enquiry report the finding was that the charges were not made out except charge no. 5 with respect to which it was stated that the same was not fully proved. The Enquiry Officer further recommended that the petitioner should be freed from suspension. The matter was examined by the disciplinary authority, the general body of the Nagar Parishad in its meeting dated 31.8.2010 and after drawing the conclusion that the enquiry report of the Executive Officer was wrong and misleading and relying upon a report of a five member committee appointed by it, it found the petitioner guilty of the charges and dismissed him from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority has violated the principles of natural justice as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra: A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2713 in which it was laid down that if the disciplinary authority intends to differ from the report and finding of the enquiry officer then it must indicate the 3 reasons for differing with the said findings and give opportunity to the proceedee to meet the same. Admittedly, according to learned counsel the same was not done in the present matter and on the basis of report of a five member committee, set up to examine the enquiry report, the petitioner has been dismissed without any reason being assigned differing with the report of the enquiry officer. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits, that the disciplinary authority as the general body of the Nagar Parishad has acted on the basis of the report of the five member committee which has informed that there was a collusion between the enquiry officer and the petitioner and the said committee has found all the charges proved and accordingly the decision has been taken. The aforesaid procedure followed by the disciplinary authority is undisputedly violative of the principles of natural justice as laid down by the Apex Court in case of Kunj Behari Misra (Supra). Learned counsel was unable to show as to how the principles laid down in the said case have been followed in the present matter. In the above circumstances, this court is clearly of the view that in the instant case there is 4 violation of the principles of natural justice as laid down in Kunj Behari Misra’s case (Supra) as it was not open to the disciplinary authority to have come to a different conclusion from the enquiry officer without assigning any reason for differing with the finding of the enquiry officer and thereafter issuing a show cause to the petitioner and giving him opportunity to file his representation against the same meeting the said reasons. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 8.9.2010 as also the resolution dated 31.8.2010 of the general body of Nagar Panchyat, Siwan in so far as the same relates to the petitioner, are both quashed. However, it would be open to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter from the stage of submission of the enquiry report after complying with the procedure laid down in the case of Kunj Behari Misra (Supra). In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost. Anand Kr. ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)