IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12524 of 2006 SHYAM SUNDER RAI Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR STATE SCHEDULED CASTE SCHEULED TRIBES CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD & ORS. ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s. Gajanan Arun & Amrendra Nr. Rai, Advocates For the Corporation: Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Advocate --------- 2 28.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the Corporation. Vide order dated 17.5.2005 contained in annexure-5 petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground of certain embezzlement and maintenance of accounts in his capacity as an Inspector while working with Purnea Branch of the Corporation. This order of punishment is therefore under challenge in the present writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment is bad in law in view of the fact that he had not been served a copy of the so called enquiry report based on which order of punishment has been passed. Not only this, he also informs the Court that a criminal case was also instituted against him for the same cause of action which was K. Hat P.S. Case No. 313 of 2004. The matter was thoroughly investigated by the police and a Final Form has come to be filed in the case exonerating the petitioner of any wrong doing. Petitioner in his rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit has brought the - 2 - above fact on record as also annexed the detailed petition which he had filed before the Superintendent of Police, Purnea which is annexure-9. According to the petitioner since all the money had been deposited at various point of time either in the local office or in the headquarters, the whole issue and the allegation of embezzlement is misplaced. The materials and the statements made in the writ application as well as the rejoinder application are therefore upon the respondents to consider it. In so far as the validity of the impugned order contained in annexure-5 is concerned, in absence of any proof or the assertion that the petitioner had been served a copy of the enquiry report, a second show cause notice issued to him and thereafter impugned order having been passed, the matter will require interference by this Court. The order of punishment contained in annexure-5 dated 17.5.2005 is quashed on this ground alone. The matter is remanded back to the respondents with liberty and direction that if the material furnished by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police in the criminal case is borne out from the records then there may not be any occasion to proceed against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry any further. But if the statements and the evidence are not reconcilable then the respondents may proceed from the point of issuing a copy of enquiry report to the petitioner, issuing him a second show cause notice in this regard and thereafter pass an appropriate order, if need be. This writ application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)