CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1703 OF 1996 ----------- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ----------- Rajeshwar Prasad, son of Late Daroga Prasad, resident of village Bankatwa, P.O. Choubey, P.O. Choubey Tola, P.S. Chanpatia, District- West Champaran, at present posted in the office of R.D.D., Saran. ……………. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Director, Primary Education, Human Resources and Development, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3.Regional Deputy Director, Education, Saran Division, Chapra 4.District Education Officer, Siwan 5.Regional Education Officer, Maharajganj …………… Respondents ----------- For The Petitioner : Mr.J.P.Shukla,Sr.Adv. with M/s K.K.Tiwary and Ashok kumar Sinha No.2, Adv. For The Respondents : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, G.P.15 and Mrs.Nutan Kumari Sharma, A.C. to G.P.15. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Jayanandan Singh,J: Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal, as contained in Annexure-5, which was issued upon conclusion of departmental proceeding against him. Case of the petitioner is that while he was headmaster of a Government Basic School, Mundipur in the district of Siwan, he was served with the charges vide office order dated 31.12.1993 issued under the signature of District Education Officer, Siwan, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure-15 - 2 - with the second supplementary reply filed on behalf of the petitioner today. In reply to the charges, petitioner submitted his detailed show cause, as contained in Annexure-3. In his reply, which runs into 12 pages, petitioner gave detailed explanation with respect to each and every charges separately and also stated that along with the charge memo, relevant documents and list of evidence had not been served on him. It is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after the petitioner submitted his reply to the enquiry officer, he did not received any further communication asking him to appear in the proceeding. It is also contended that no document and list of witnesses were served on the petitioner to enable him to get prepared for his defence in the enquiry. It is submitted that the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer without holding an enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the same and defend his case. It is also contended that even copy of the enquiry report was not served on him nor was he served with a second show cause notice along with the enquiry report to meet the findings of the enquiry officer by filing representation for consideration of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority without complying those requirements, passed order finding the charges true and issued orders of his - 3 - termination. He submits that the entire proceeding thus stands vitiated on account of gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and therefore, the impugned order is fit to be quashed. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case by the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that notices were issued to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry but he failed to do so and therefore, enquiry officer proceeded ex-parte and submitted his report on the basis of materials available before him. However, this is not denied that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and copy of the enquiry report was also not served on him to enable him to meet the findings of the enquiry officer and file reply to the same. The report of the enquiry officer is annexed as Annexure-2 with the writ application. The report shows that the enquiry officer referred to several documents and records available in offices of the respondents and came to the conclusion that the charges against petitioner were proved. The enquiry report nowhere mentions that inspite of adequate notice petitioner had not appeared in the enquiry and had not participated in the same. This is also not mentioned in the report that in absence of the petitioner, his reply to each and every charges were examined and found not sustainable. The impugned order also does not show that any second show cause notice was - 4 - issued to the petitioner along with the enquiry report which the petitioner did not receive or the same could not be served on him due to some compelling reasons. On the other hand, the impugned order shows that the records on the basis of which enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority did not contain reply of the petitioner to the charges. This establishes that the reply of the petitioner to the charges were never considered by the respondents at any stage. These admitted facts clearly go in support of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order and the entire proceeding of the enquiry thus clearly stand vitiated on account of gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice. In the circumstances, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and hence the same is quashed. Respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner afresh from the stage of submission of show cause reply by the petitioner to the charges, after supplying or allowing him to inspect the relevant documents and records as respondents may propose to rely in the proceeding and after giving him adequate opportunity to appear in the proceeding and defend himself. If the respondents decide to proceed in the matter afresh, this must be done and completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. - 5 - It is made clear that if the proceeding is not concluded and final orders are not passed by the respondents within six months, they shall be precluded from proceeding in the matter afresh and petitioner will be entitled to be restored in service with all consequential benefits. It will be open to the respondents to proceed in the matter and conclude the same within the time fixed by this Court even if petitioner does not co-operate in the proceeding inspite of adequate opportunity provided to him. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Patna High Court, 6th May, 2010 N.A.F.R./Pradeep (Jayanandan Singh,J.)