IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8105 of 2010 SHYAM PRASAD SINHA S/O DASRATH PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- SARHAN, P.S. PANDARAK, P.O. SARHAN, DISTT.- PATNA. ………. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT- CUM-CONDUCTING OFFICER, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, MUZAFFARPUR ……….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 07/03/2011 Petitioner in this case has challenged the punishment order, as contained in Annexure-1, passed on conclusion of enquiry against him in which he has been demoted from the post of Labour Superintendent (a Gazetted post) to the post of Labour Enforcement Officer (a Non- Gazetted post) and he has been debarred from any further payment during the period of his suspension except the subsistence allowance. The facts of this case show that petitioner showed complete non-co-operation in the departmental proceeding and, inspite of repeated communication, he did not appear and enter into his defence at any stage before the enquiry officer. Hence, initially, this Court was of the view that in view of his defiance to 2 the procedure of law, petitioner was not entitled to any relief. However, one fact persuaded this Court that some interference is required. The charge and the enquiry report shows that the first charge against the petitioner was that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had fixed a date to visit office of the petitioner in respect of some enquiry on a complaint against him and had intimated him with regard to his visit. However, when the Assistant Labour Commissioner visited the office of the petitioner, he found his office locked and the petitioner absent. It has been noticed in the enquiry report that since then petitioner has been non-co-operative till the order of punishment was issued against him. However, from the enquiry report, this Court finds that before the enquiry was started by the enquiry officer, though ex-parte, petitioner had filed some representation on 2.4.2008 which was available with the enquiry officer during enquiry. A typed copy of the said representation is annexed as Annexure-5. This representation shows that the petitioner had, in very categorical terms, denied that he had 3 any knowledge that the Assistant Labour Commissioner was coming to his Office to hold any enquiry. The representation also mentions that the petitioner was absent from office only for fifteen minutes and had gone home only to have medicines and had come back again and remained there. But he was not informed by any employee of the office that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had come there. This denial is a question of fact and going to the root of charge no.1. Inspite of this denial, this Court finds that in the enquiry no witness was examined and no fact was proved. On the basis of letters issued to the petitioner, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner had knowledge of visit of Assistant Labour Commissioner and had deliberately avoided him. A departmental proceeding as per statutory rules has the nature of a quasi judicial proceeding. Rule of law requires that whenever there is denial by any delinquent in a quasi judicial proceeding or by an accused in a judicial proceeding, charge and the guilt has to be proved on the basis of admissible evidence. In a criminal proceeding, one word of 4 denial by the accused of the charge leads to full fledged trial by production of witnesses even if accused does not open his mouth any further. Strict rules of evidence may not apply in a departmental proceeding, but this much is essential that, in case any denial by the delinquent to the charge is available on record, the facts leading to proof of charge the charge must be proved by production of materials and examination of witnesses, even if the delinquent is not present to enter into his defence and for cross-examining the witnesses and challenging the reliability of documents. In the present case, from the enquiry report, it is clear that this has not been done even if petitioner was not present and not co- operating in the proceeding. The specific denial by the petitioner to the charge was available on the record which raised a question of fact going to the root of the charge. Therefore, the same should have been got proved by the presenting officer by producing witnesses and documents including receipt of letters and communications by the petitioner intimating him with regard to visit of Assistant Labour Commissioner to his office on 5 a particular date and time for holding some enquiry. This is completely absent in the enquiry. Against his suspension order, petitioner had moved this Court wherein he had challenged that the enquiry was not being held in terms of Rule 17 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Learned counsel for the State had assured this Court that the said Rule 17 would be complied with in the enquiry against the petitioner. In view of such assurance, this Court had disposed of the writ application of the petitioner by order dated 17.11.2009, as contained in Annexure-9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the said assurance, respondents have not complied with the provisions of Rule 17 in the enquiry which begins from non- furnishing of statement of imputations along with charges to the petitioner. He further submits that Rule 17 was also not complied with at subsequent stages of proceeding. However, since this Court has found that no evidence was led in the proceeding, even in absence of the petitioner, to establish the charges, this Court does not feel it necessary 6 to go into the specific question of violation of Rule 17 in the proceeding. In the circumstances, impugned order of punishment as well as enquiry report, as contained in Annexure-1, is quashed. Respondents are directed to take up the proceeding from the stage of framing and service of charges upon the petitioner and proceed with the same strictly in compliance to Rule 17 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will co-operate in the proceeding at all stages, failing which proceeding may go adverse against him to which he will not raise any complaint. Mr.Bose, learned counsel for the State submits that the proceeding will commence from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall be concluded strictly in terms of the Rules and within the time prescribed therein. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)