IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1856 of 2002 SHIV KUMAR MISHRA S/0 late Nihora Mishra, R/o, Paterha, P.S. Biddu Pur, Dist-Vaishali, Presently, Senior Account Clerk (Store-keeper), Ram Nagar, West Champaran. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 4. Chief Engineer, Water Resouces Department, Motihari 5. The Executive Engineer, Din Canal Project, Ramnagar, West Champaran. 6. The Executive Engineer, Triveni Canal Construction Division, Bagaha, Motihari. 7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Triveni Canal Construction Division, Bagaha, Motihari. ----------- For petitioner:-Mr.G.K.Jha, Advocate Dr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate Mr. S.K.Jha, Advocate. For the State:-G.P.9 ------------ 6. 19.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By the impugned order dated 24.8.2001 (Annexure-1) petitioner has been awarded the punishment of recovery of two lacs, stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and no pay for the period of suspension. There is no dispute that at the relevant time petitioner was posted as Store-keeper in Triveni Canal Construction, Sub Division-Bagaha and during that period articles worth of Rs.5.8 lacs were taken out of the store by fraud on the basis of forged indent letter having some discrepancies which are mentioned in the - 2 - impugned order itself. It is also not in dispute that a proper disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. He replied to the charges. The proceeding continued from 10.10.1996 till 10.1.1998 and petitioner appeared on some of the dates and explained his show-cause. Petitioner was also given second show-cause notice to which he replied and thereafter the impugned order of punishment has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid strong emphasis on a letter of the petitioner dated 8.1.1998 by which he did not answer certain queries and submitted that he has already submitted all the materials and since proceeding is continuing further then he may be given permission to engage a legal counsel. It has been submitted that not permitting the petitioner to engage legal counsel was an error committed by the enquiry officer and therefore the enquiry proceeding should be treated as ex parte. This Court finds no merit in this submission. The Presenting Officer was not a lawyer and in such a situation even if the enquiry officer deemingly - 3 - refused to allow the petitioner to engage a legal counsel, that shall not be a denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner. In this regard a Division Bench judgment in the case of Mosmat Raj Bansi Devi V. Union of India reported in 2004 (4)PLJR 435 may be noticed. In the facts of the case, this Court also finds no merit in the contention that the charges were not found proved during the enquiry. It appears that for the charges found established against the petitioner the enquiry officer was of the view that some other officers may also be involved in the fraud. Learned counsel for State has submitted that in fact one Nand Kumar Rana, a Junior Engineer was also punished for his involvement in the same transaction. Considering all the facts and circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)