IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7786 of 1995 Ranjit Kumar Sinha, son of late Gajadhar Prasad, resident of village and P.O. Ratanpur, Police Station- Muffasil, District- Bhojpur. -----Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Director, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Deputy Director, Welfare Department, Patna Division, Patna. 6. District Welfare Officer, Bhojpur. -------Respondents. ------------ 5. 7.11.2008. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in annexure-7 dated 28.8.1995 by which the petitioner has been punished. The facts are that some anti social elements entered the Government Schedule Caste Residential High School, Ara (hereinafter called ‘the Girls Hostel’) on 15.9.1993. The petitioner was working at the relevant time as the Hostel Incharge. On hearing about the incident, the petitioner, on the next day lodged a First Information Report. On 20.9.1993 there was a complaint by two girls living in the Girls Hostel that the petitioner is said to have misbehaved with them. On the basis of the complaint, a decision was taken to institute a criminal case. A letter was sent to the District Magistrate, Bhojpur for institution of a criminal case. The District Magistrate,Bhojpur after taking the statements of the girls found that in fact they did not support the allegations in the complaint petition and found difficulty in instituting the First Information Report against the petitioner. Nevertheless, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner after - 2 - serving him charges on 26.9.1994. The enquiry report is contained in annexure-6 of the writ application in which details have been given discussing the circumstances surrounding the allegations against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after considering all aspects of the matter has found that there was an incident on 15.9.1993 which was reported by one of the girls living in the Girls Hostel and thereafter on 20.9.1993 it was decided that a complaint should be filed against the petitioner although he did not work on the said post for a long time and there was no complaint earlier alleging mal-practice and sexual harassment with the girls students living in the Girls Hostel. The Enquiry Officer also found that in view of the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate and the admission made on behalf of the girls that they signed on the complaint petition without reading the contents,the allegations against the petitioner remained and unsubstantiated. Thus the Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of the charges. After recording the findings, the enquiry report was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued an order contained in annexure-7 dated 28.8.1995 stating therein that on the basis of the enquiry report, he found that the petitioner is responsible for the allegations as made out in the charge sheet and imposed punishment as contained in annexure-7. Two points have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it is submitted that the relevant documents and files have not been handed over to the petitioner for examination by the Enquiry Officer although the petitioner had specially made a prayer in - 3 - the show cause that the petitioner may be permitted to examine the files. I am not considering this aspect of the matter in view of the order I intend to pass. In my view and a more relevant aspect of the matter is that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order of punishment should have given reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry report. Contrary to that, relying on the enquiry report which has not at all substantiated the allegations, the order of punishment has been issued, which is in my view not legally tenable. The Disciplinary Authority would be well within his rights to disagree with the enquiry report, but while doing so, the reasons should be indicated in the order. Therefore, I find that the order of punishment is not sustainable. In the result, I quash the order dated 28.8.1995 awarding punishment to the petitioner. The Respondents may reconsider the matter and if the authorities after taking into account the delay, still think it necessary to take action against the petitioner may institute a proceeding. The Disciplinary Authority is also at liberty to drop the matter considering the time that has elapsed and taking into account the fact that it would be difficult to obtain evidence of the girls after 15 years. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)