IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9037 of 2005 UDESHWAR KAMTI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For Petitioner: Mr Kali Kant Jha, Advocate For respondents 2 to 5:Mr Amit Shrivastava, Advocate ------ 7. 23.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by orders dated 14.10.2004 and 19.10.2004 by which he has been dismissed from services of the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited. The petitioner was put under suspension on 10.9.2004 when departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The grave man of the charge was coming to the office in drunken condition, creating nuisance in inebriated state, misbehaving and threatening with his co-employees. An enquiry report then came to be submitted on 11.10.2004 with a finding of guilty. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact no memo of charges in accordance with law were served upon the petitioner. Copy of the enquiry report was not made available and no second show cause was issued with regard to the proposed punishment. This Court on a conjoint reading of Annexures 2 and 4 of the writ application is satisfied that in fact no proper memo of charges were ever served upon the petitioner. No memo of charges, list of witnesses/documents find reference in Annexures 2 and 4. From a bare reading of the enquiry report this Court is satisfied that it contains no discussion of defence of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons this Court has no hesitation in holding that there has in fact been no proper departmental proceeding in law against the petitioner. However this Court cannot loose site of the nature of allegation against the petitioner and the statements made in the counter affidavit with regard to his conduct in the office premises. This Court therefore while setting aside the orders of dismissal dated 14.10.2004 and 19.10.2004 considers the present an appropriate case to simultaneously direct that this shall not result in reinstatement of the petitioner. He shall continue to remain under suspension. Let the memo of charges be served upon the petitioner in accordance with law, departmental proceedings be held expeditiously thereafter in accordance with law and be concluded within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order, provided the petitioner himself cooperates. The writ application stands allowed only to the extent indicated above. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)