CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2587 OF 1993 *** In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India *** Ganga Nath Jha, son of late Daya Nand Jha, resident of village-Sirsia Kalan, P.S. Bhargama, District- Araria...................................Petitioner Versus 1. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Madhepura, District-Madhepura. 2. The Vice Chancellor of Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Madhepura, District-Madhepura. 3. The Registrar of Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Madhepura, District- Madhepura...............................Respondents *** For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents: Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH *** J.N. Singh, J. No one appears for the petitioner. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar, Standing Counsel for B.N. Mandal University. 2. Petitioner in this writ application has challenged an order dated 30.11.1992 issued under the signature of the Registrar, B.N. Mandal University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’) by which one Professor Dev Dutt Poddar was appointed an Enquiry Officer to hold a fresh enquiry against the petitioner. 3. As per pleadings, petitioner was appointed as Principal of Araria College, Araria when the College was under the control of L.N. Mithila 2 University. It appears that, under the orders of the Chancellor a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and Inspector of Colleges was appointed as Enquiry Officer who submitted his report. The Vice-Chancellor of B.N. Mandal University, under whose jurisdiction the College stood transferred, rejected the enquiry report and ordered for a fresh enquiry and appointed Professor Dev Dutt Poddar as enquiry officer to hold the enquiry against the petitioner by the impugned order. 4. The University has filed counter affidavit in which circumstances have been explained under which earlier enquiry report of the Inspector of Colleges was not found correct and found fit to be rejected. It has been shown in the counter affidavit that the Inspector of Colleges was appointed on 20.08.1992 and on that very day he invited an explanation from the petitioner and submitted his report solely on that basis, without looking to the relevant records and without calling for the records available in L.N. Mithila University in connection with the charges against the petitioner. The circumstances leading to the appointment of fresh enquiry officer, as explained in the counter affidavit, appear to the Court, fully justify the issue of the impugned order. 3 5. Hence, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. I agree (J.N. Singh, J.) S.K. Katriar, J. (S.K. Katriar, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 6th August, 2010 N.A.F.R. (B.T.)