IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5074 of 2003 BHUSHAN PRASAD SON OF LATE DOMAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BICHLI KUAN RAJGIR, P.O. RAJGIR, DISTRICT NALANDA. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 3. CHIEF OF THE ADMINISTRATION, B.S.F. CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION, SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S Bipin Bihari Singh & Shiv Pd. Gupta, Advocates. For the Board : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate. 5/ 23-06-2009 Heard. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has challenged his order of dismissal from service as passed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. The petitioner has raised a very small issue. He submits that he was suspended on charge of alleged black marketing of wheat. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated and a charge- sheet was submitted to him. Along with the charge he was given statements of certain witnesses that were recorded in support of the allegation. Petitioner subsequently requested for production of those persons so that he may cross-examine them. These witnesses were government officials and the fair price shop dealers whose quota is alleged to have been sold in black - 2 - market. In paragraph -22 of the writ petition specific averment has been made in this regard. A counter affidavit has been filed in which there is no specific reply to this assertion. Petitioner has filed copy of his representation as well, pointing out these two defects, which are contained in part of Annexure-12 series. In the counter affidavit such representations are not denied. Thus it is undisputed that the department failed to examine even a single witness in support of the charge. This is also apparent from the impugned order wherein the departmental enquiry Officer has clearly noted that he has proceeded on the written statement as forming part of the record. This, in my view, is a procedural infirmity in the disciplinary proceeding itself. This vitiates the order of dismissal in law. It is well settled that in a departmental proceedings evidence has to be recorded in present of parties with opportunity to examine the witnesses. Here witnesses were specifically called for but none were examined much less opportunity was given to them. This clearly vitiates the order. The order of dismissal thus, cannot sustain. It is quashed accordingly. The matter is thus remanded back to the stage of enquiry for proceeding afresh in accordance with law. It is expected that since the matter is very old, the departmental authority would conclude the proceeding within a period of six months. - 3 - The writ petition is thus disposed of. BTiwary/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)