IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8854 of 2002 ARVIND BIHARI VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr Shravan Kumar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr Rajiv Nayan Singh, Advocate ------- 3. 11.02.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State and neither has any counter affidavit been filed. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The allegations were that he accepted certain documents for registration in which certain interpolations were found. One of the executants admitted the interpolations when it was suspected that the petitioner was also involved in the same. The enquiry proceeded. The enquiry report dated 19.4.2000 exonerated him completely. It appears that thereafter the respondents proceeded to hold a fresh enquiry. It is the specific case of the petitioner in paragraph 16 of the writ application that he is not aware of any further enquiry held by the respondents. In view of that submission, it is not necessary for this Court go into the legality of the re-enquiry. If it was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, it is non est. The respondents cannot be permitted to continue with fresh enquiry till a report to their satisfaction is submitted and then confront the petitioner with the report of such enquiry conducted behind his back with an order of punishment without opportunity to show cause. Whether it be the fresh enquiry or the order of punishment based thereupon without a second show cause notice, the order of punishment dated 8.3.2002 is not sustainable in either event. Considering the long period of time which has passed since the order of punishment was passed and that there are no allegations of the petitioner having been indulged in financial embezzlement causing revenue loss to the State etc. this Court is not persuaded that the charges were of such gravity to remand the matter for reconsideration, more so when the respondents themselves have chosen not to file counter affidavit seven years latter despite adjournment granted for the same on 14.8.2002. The impugned order of punishment dated 8.3.2002 withholding three increments with cumulative effect and denial of promotion for five years is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)