IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13465 of 2009 PRAVEEN KUMAR & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 15.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Now deceased father of the petitioners was placed under suspension on certain allegations with regard to non-reporting of a felled sheesham tree in his capacity as Halka Karamchari. Departmental proceedings were initiated. The enquiry report was of a finding of guilt. An appeal was preferred by the employee in his life time came to be rejected. Before he could pursue the matter further, he was deceased and therefore the writ application by his sons. The objection of delay in challenge raised by the respondents does not appeal to this Court. The appeal preferred by the deceased remained pending before the authorities for ten years. The standard by which the respondents wish to tie down the petitioners, shall be the same standard by which their conduct shall also be judged. Additionally, the proceedings suffer from patent illegality vitiating the enquiry proceedings itself and which though raised in appeal was considered irrelevant and left out in decision by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly 2 urged from the report of the enquiry officer dated 27.6.1988 that he himself assumed the role of presiding officer and became a witness also in pursuance of which he returned a finding of guilt. This Court also finds that objection has been specifically taken in Paragraph 7 of the memo of appeal when the appellate order reinforced its findings by observing that the findings of the enquiry are corroborated by his own evidence also with regard to the allegations. The records of the proceedings therefore clearly reveal that the enquiry officer who was required to decide objectively on basis of materials and evidence before him, became an interested party himself, collected evidence and arrived at a finding against the deceased. In 2008(8) SCC 236 (State of Uttaranchal and Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh) it has been held that where “the enquiry officer himself inspected the areas in the forest and after taking note of certain alleged deficiencies secured some answers from the delinquent by putting questions, it is clear that the enquiry officer himself has acted as the investigator, prosecutor and judge. Such a procedure is opposed to principles of natural justice and has been frowned upon by this Court.” This Court is satisfied that the impugned orders 3 of punishment dated 9.8.1989 and the appellate order dated 19.9.2000 are not sustainable in law. They are accordingly set aside with direction for payment of monetary dues of the deceased to the petitioners in accordance with law inclusive of the recalculated retirement dues while the deceased was alive. Let this order be complied with within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production before the concerned respondents. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)