IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15382 of 2006 AMRESH KUMAR SINGH Versus BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK &ORS For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Tewary For the Respondents : Dr. Sadanand Jha, Sr. Adv. ----------- 4. 26.09.2008 I.A. No. 5871 of 20089 has been filed challenging the order of punishment dated 15.10.2007 as also bringing on record the enquiry report. The order now sought to be assailed is only an extension of the departmental enquiry against the initiation of which the petitioner had originally come to this Court. Learned senior counsel, Dr. Sadanand Jha has opposed the I.A. to submit that the order of punishment is dated 15.10.2007 and the present I.A. has been filed more than one year later on 19.9.2008. He additionally urged that the petitioner has remedy of appeal against the order of punishment. This Court is not satisfied to hold that there has been unreasonable delay on the part of the petitioner when the original writ application is still pending and no issues of third party right arise. This Court has also gone through the enquiry report. The objection of an alternative remedy of appeal does not appeal to this Court for reasons of discussion hereinafter. I.A. No. 5871 of 2008 is, therefore, allowed. The scope for a writ Court to interfere with departmental proceedings and order of punishment thereupon are extremely limited. Unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate perversity, extraneous materials, violation of procedures contravening principles of natural - 2 - justice are some of the examples where the Court can interfere. There shall be yet another instance calling for interference. Quite apart from the defence that the petitioner may take or may not take, the duty of the prosecution to prove its own case stands unshaken. It requires the enquiry officer to examine the prosecution witnesses, to examine the documents in support of the charges and then arrive at a conclusion that the charges stood proved. From a bare perusal of the enquiry report, it does not appear that any prosecution witnesses have been examined. There is no discussion of documentary evidence on basis of which the Enquiry Officer recorded his findings. In fact, the findings recorded are extremely cryptic and without any reasoning. For that reason, the order of punishment dated 15.10.2007 is set aside. Noticing the charges, this Court does not consider it prudent to direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated. This Court, therefore, directs that the petitioner shall continue to remain under suspension even while directions are given to conclude the departmental proceedings afresh from the stage of charges within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order strictly in accordance with law. In the event that the petitioner fails to cooperate adequately, the departmental proceedings must be concluded within the time prescribed after recording the satisfaction of the enquiry officer of the lack of cooperation from the petitioner. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)