IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3927 of 2004 SHEELA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr Sunil Kumar, Advocate Mr Navin Kumar, Advocate For the State : None ------ 4. 03.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State. A counter affidavit is available on the record which has been perused.. The original petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. He filed his reply to the charges when the order of punishment dated 16.12.2003 came to be passed visiting him with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, censure to be entered in his character roll and nothing beyond subsistence allowance shall be payable for the period of suspension which shall otherwise be counted for the purpose of pension. During pendency of the writ application the original petitioner was deceased on 30.4.2005 and was substituted by his wife as his legal heir on 26.8.2005. Learned Counsel submits from paragraph 10 of the writ application that after the petitioner filed his reply to the memo of charges he was neither supplied with any document in support of the charges nor were any dates fixed for participation by him in the departmental proceedings communicated to him. on basis of such ex- parte enquiry followed the order of punishment without even issuance of second show cause notice for the purpose of punishment. The counter affidavit at paragraph 10 while dealing with the pleadings as noticed above with regard to the conduct of the departmental proceedings at paragraph 10 of the writ application does not deny the same. The respondents have not even chosen to place on record a copy of the enquiry report. The Court has therefore no hesitation in holding that there has never been any departmental proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law. If the enquiry has been held behind his back to indict him is not sustainable. The issue of absence of second show cause notice looses its significance. The impugned order of punishment dated 16.12.2003 is accordingly quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to the monetary benefits of the increments wrongly withheld as also for the full salary for the period of suspension less the subsistence allowance paid. Let the monetary benefits on both counts be paid to the petitioner on account of her deceased husband. The petitioner shall also be entitled to re-fixation of her family pension accordingly. Let the compliance on both counts and the actual monetary benefits of the same be made available to the petitioner within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)