IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.509 of 2008 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Director General of Police, C.I.S.F. North Block, New Delhi. 3. Inspector General of Police, C.I.S.F, Eastern Sector, Head Quarters, C.I.S.F. Complex, Boring Road, Patliputra, Patna-13. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.S.F., Eastern Zone, Head Quarter, 19, Telegraph Colony, Kidwaipuri, Patna. 5. The Commandant, C.I.S.F., BALCO Korba (M.P.) ………………..Respondent……….Appellants. Versus MAHESHWAR PRASAD, son of late Munshi Singh, resident of village Korari, P.O. Kozari, P.S. Belchhi, District Patna. …………………Petitioner……..Respondent. ----------- 5 02.02.2011 The present L.P.A. is filed against the order dated 18.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.2626 of 2001 preferred by the respondent herein. The writ petitioner, respondent herein, filed the writ petition for quashing the order passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Balco, Corba, Madhya Pradesh, in a departmental proceeding dismissing the writ petitioner from service on the ground of unauthorized absence of 73 days. It is the case of the writ petitioner, respondent herein, that he was posted as Water Carrier in the Central Industrial Security Force and he was sanctioned fifteen days casual leave with effect from 20.4.1999 to 10.5.1999, but however he could not report on duty and over stayed on leave for 73 days and on his joining a show cause notice was served upon him by the disciplinary authority and thereafter the writ petitioner was subjected to the departmental enquiry. It is the case of the writ petitioner, respondent herein that although he submitted medical certificate but the same was 2 not accepted by the authority and after conducting an enquiry the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him. The main contention of the writ petitioner, respondent herein urged before the learned Single Judge was that he was not supplied the relevant document and also he was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses and accordingly the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority has been in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge having heard the parties held that the conduct of the respondents, appellants herein in not supplying the relevant documents as also in not allowing the writ petitioner, respondent herein to cross examine the witnesses is in violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly quashed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as also the revisional authority as contained in Annexures-3, 4 and 6 and after allowing the writ petition a direction was given to the respondents to allow the writ petitioner to join on his post with all the consequential benefits on the ground of setting aside the order of punishment. Learned counsel for the appellants- Union of India & others, has contended that even assuming that there is some violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed the respondents, appellants herein to reinstate the writ petitioner in service. Learned counsel further contented that the learned Single 3 Judge ought to have directed the departmental authority to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage of cross- examination of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, respondent herein has submitted that the order of dismissal from service is too harsh and dis-appropriate as he has already submitted the medical certificate in his defence and further he was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses and was also not supplied the relevant documents. Having heard counsel for the parties and also taken into account the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the fact remains that respondents, appellants herein was not allowed the writ petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and also not supplied the relevant documents as sought for by the writ petitioner which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Under the above circumstances, it would suffice if a direction is given to the appellants, respondents in the writ petition to allow the writ petitioner, respondent herein to cross examine the witnesses as also to supply the relevant documents as sought for by the writ petitioner, respondent herein. This Court orders accordingly. It is made clear that if the application of the writ petitioner seeking to allow him to cross examine the witnesses as also to supply the relevant document is not available in the 4 department, liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to file a fresh petition for the same and on receipt of such petition the Enquiry Officer must allow the writ petitioner to cross examine the witnesses as also the relevant documents should be supplied to him as per rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application. However, as there is violation of principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the order of dismissal has to be set aside only on that ground and the enquiry has to be star ted from the point of examination of the witnesses. Accordingly order of the learned Single Judge is modified and the L.P.A. is allowed with the above modification. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)