CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10828 OF 1998 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. LAXMI NARAYAN SINHA Son of Late Lalji Prasad Sinha Resident of Adampur Mohalla, P.S. Kotwali District- Bhagalpur presently posted as Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division IV, Galudih P.O. Mohalia, East Singhbhoom. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Engineer in Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Icha Galudih Complex Subernrekha Project, Adityapur, Jamshedput. 5. The Executive Engineer Minor Distribution Division 9 presently holding dual charge of Minor Distribution Division-4 Ghatshila Camp Galudih, Jamshedpur. 6. The Accountant Genera, Bihar. ---------- Respondents. For The Petitioner :Mr. Arun Bihari Mathur, Sr. Advocate Mr. Kiran Chandra Prasad, Advocate For The Respondent :Mr. J.P. Karn, A.A.G. IX Mr. Ranjan Kumar, J.C. to A.A.G. IX P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. The petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer in the Government of Bihar. The petitioner was terminated from service vide annexure-10 dated 10.7.1998. An enquiry was held in which the petitioner is said to have participated although the petitioner has claimed that the documents relating to the allegations against the petitioner were not made available to the 2 Enquiry Officer. The petitioner also alleges that after receipt of some documents on 11.4.1994, the enquiry was closed within three days as the Enquiry Officer was trying to comply with an earlier order of this Court wherein there was a direction that the disciplinary proceeding should be concluded within three months. 2. The enquiry report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 2.5.1994 considered the findings of the Enquiry Officer and suggested certain punishments to be awarded to the petitioner which were censure from 1991, stoppage of promotion for four consecutive years, stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and the petitioner was to be paid only his subsistence allowance during the period he was suspended, although it was clarified that the period of suspension would be counted for the purpose of pension. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, although the petitioner alleged that he did not file any reply to the second 3 show cause notice, the order of punishment contained in annexure-10 was issued terminating the services of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not supplied the documents during the enquiry although he had made a specific prayer for supply of documents. It is also submitted that the Enquiry Officer did not have the relevant documents which would show that the petitioner had diverted the funds or had made payments without proper authority. The third submission is that the petitioner filed a reply to the second show cause which has not at all been considered by the impugned order and in fact the order impugned has been passed awarding the ultimate punishment of termination without giving reasons for differing with the findings of the disciplinary authority. 4. After going through the brief and the documents brought on record and specifically annexure-14 which is the file sent to the Cabinet for approval of the 4 petitioner’s order of termination, I find that the notings clearly indicate that the petitioner had filed his second show cause notice bringing the attention of the authorities certain facts with respect to the enquiry made against him. The notings in the file indicate that, in fact, the petitioner was not supplied the documents and the documents were also not available to the Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry and it has been suggested that all the errors which have been pointed out in column (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) should be removed. 5. Once the State authorities come to the conclusion that the procedure for conducting the disciplinary proceeding was wanting in more than one ways. It becomes difficult for this Court to uphold the order of termination passed against the petitioner. 6. In the circumstances, I order that the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department should appoint an Enquiry Officer to look into the allegations 5 made out in the chargesheet and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to present his case. The Enquiry Officer should be appointed within a period of one month i.e. by 29th December, 2008. The petitioner should suo moto file his show cause by 5th of January, 2009 and also file any other application with respect to any document which he wants to bring on record for the purpose of facing the enquiry. The petitioner will be permitted to file a supplementary show cause after he has received the documents from the department. The Enquiry Officer will have the right to refuse to supply the documents if they are not necessary for the purpose of this enquiry by passing an order to that effect. After the documents etc. are made available to the Enquiry Officer, he should conclude the enquiry within 1½ months. The petitioner should not be permitted to delay the proceedings by asking for unnecessary adjournments or time. After the submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority is required to pass an order 6 within a period of one month on receipt of the enquiry report and all other consequential order should also be passed within a period of 4 months from the date of initiation of the enquiry. The petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages etc. till the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings. If the petitioner is put under suspension during the disciplinary proceeding, he would be entitled to payment of suspension allowance. 7. The order contained in annexures 4, 10 and 13 are quashed. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Patna High Court, November, 27th, 2008 Sanjay/N.A.F.R. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)