IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15700 of 2008 Md. Rafique, Son of Late Md. Abdul Rashid, Resident of Karman Tola, Nawadah Masjid, P.S. Nawadah, Town Arrah, District Bhojpur………………………………………………………………....Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna. 3. The Director, Directorate of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna. 4. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Patna Division, Mithapur Farm, Patna. 5. The Special Deputy Director of Agriculture-cum-Special Officer, Gahan Krishi District Planning, Arrah, Bhojpur…Respondents ----------- 3 18.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Without going into the facts of the case, this writ application is fit to be disposed of only on one issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated on oath in the writ petition that, after enquiry report was submitted by the Conducting Officer, neither any second show cause notice was served on the petitioner nor any copy of the enquiry report was supplied to him giving him any opportunity to meet the findings of the Enquiry Officer, before the punishment order terminating his 2 services was passed. This stand of the petitioner is not denied in the counter affidavit. On the other hand, a peculiar stand has been taken in the counter affidavit sworn by one Sri Ram Chandra Ram, Joint Director of Agriculture, that petitioner never demanded any copy of the enquiry report. This stand is clearly in the teeth of settled law. It is the Disciplinary Authority who is under obligation under law to supply a copy of the enquiry report to a delinquent with a second show cause notice, giving an opportunity to him to file representation in respect of the findings of the Conducting Officer contained in the enquiry report. This is a basic requirement of Principles of Natural Justice which has to be followed in a departmental proceeding where the disciplinary authority is other than the conducting officer. By no stretch of imagination, it can be accepted that a delinquent is required to demand or ask for a copy of the enquiry report or 3 second show cause notice failing which a Disciplinary Authority will stand authorized under law to pass orders on the enquiry report imposing punishment on the delinquent on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It appears that the Appellate Authority has also been swayed away by the conduct of the petitioner and has not looked into this vital procedural defect in the departmental proceeding at the stage of disciplinary authority. In the circumstances, the appellate order as contained in Annexure- 18 as well as the punishment order as contained in Annexure-12 are quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even till today no copy of the enquiry report has been supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority is directed to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner with a second show cause notice giving him a reasonable opportunity to file his representation against the findings of 4 the Enquiry Officer. After receipt of the reply of the petitioner within the time as may be fixed, Disciplinary Authority shall be at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law in the matter. Since the punishment order is being quashed on account of violation of Principles of Natural Justice, petitioner shall be treated as under suspension during this period and shall be entitled for subsistence allowance. Final orders in this regard must be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed in the manner, as indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)