IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1340 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 10459/2001) 1.Alim Jung Khan S/O Late Yunus Jung Khan R/O Vill.- Jaukhar, P.S.- Shahkund, Distt.- Bhagalpur, at present residing at mohalla- Haroon Colony, Anishabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Town &Distt.- Patna…………………………………Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Human Resources Development Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 3. Director Administrator-cum-Joint Secretary, Deptt. of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Amit Khare, I.A.S. at present working as Special Secretary, in the State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, S/O Chief Secretary, State Of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. Sri Jai Prakash Narayan Yadav, M.L.A. the then Cabinet Minister, Department Of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, through the Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna ………..Respondents For the petitioner :Mr. Banke Bihari Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Adv. SC-24 Mr. Bipin Kumar Adv. For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. N.N.Ojha, Advocate ---------------------------------- 3. 20.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. Also perused the order under appeal whereby the Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant and has declined to interfere with order dated 28th June, 2001 imposing punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner on the basis of a departmental proceeding. On the basis of counter affidavit and other materials, the Writ Court has 2 held that sufficient opportunity was given to the writ- petitioner to meet the charges that when he was District Superintendent of Education in the district of Rohtas for about 1 ½ years starting from 1982, he was responsible for illegal appointment of 170 persons on various posts. The Writ Court has come to the opinion that the enquiry initiated in the year 1983 could attain finality only in the year 2001 on account of non-cooperative approach adopted by the appellant. It has recorded that the petitioner was given documents which were necessary and he was also allowed to inspect the relevant records in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas at Sasaram but he failed to do so. We have considered the two main submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The First submission that he was not given sufficient opportunity by providing necessary documents to defend himself does not merit acceptance. We have gone through the relevant portion of the enquiry report contained in Annexure-26 to the writ petition. The Enquiry Officer has discussed as to how the appellant was responsible for creating a circumstance in the situation which led to illegal appointment of at least 55 3 persons. The findings are after considering the defence of the appellant and are based upon relevant materials. It was not possible to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on any permissible ground. The second contention is that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. That submission deserves to be noted only for rejection. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)