IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6529 of 2009 Dinesh Prasad Roy . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 05.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to be an Accounts Clerk subjected to a departmental proceeding on six charges by memo dated 17.5.2006. He filed his reply to the same. An enquiry report of guilt came to be submitted on 14.11.2006. An order of punishment on 1.2.2007 for (a) censure (b) nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension and (c) stoppage of promotion to the post of Cashier came to be passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal which has been rejected during the pendency of the writ application by Annexure-B to the counter affidavit dated 23.9.2008. Counsel for the petitioner had initially prayed for an adjournment to enable him to file a formal amendment application challenging the appellate order dated 23.9.2008. Having applied its mind, the Court is satisfied that it shall not be necessary. Had there been a proper departmental proceeding in accordance with law and further questions had arisen with regard to the legality, propriety of the same to 2 test the allegations and counter allegations, the necessity for a formal amendment application may have arisen. But if the facts are not in dispute and the impugned document has been placed before the Court by the respondents, justice demands that the Court on technicalities of procedure shall not delay dispensation of justice to the petitioner. In any event the development has taken place during the pendency of the writ application. It was also the bounden duty of the party in possession of the document to produce it so as facilitate adjudication by the Court. In (1988) 1 SCC 626 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore) it has been held at Paragraph- 10 as follows:- 10. …….This Court has consistently emphasised that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly……..” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no departmental proceeding worth the name was held in accordance with law. There was no presenting officer and no evidence was led by the 3 prosecution to prove the charge whereafter the question of considering the defence may have arisen. Counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate from the counter affidavit who was the presenting officer and what evidence was led by him to prove the charges, what were the dates fixed in the departmental proceeding to counter the allegations. The contention of the State that after submission of the enquiry report a second show cause notice was given etc. is of no avail to them. If there was no departmental enquiry in accordance with law, the formality of a second show cause notice is hardly relevant. The memo of charge itself states that the presenting officer should contact the conducting officer to ensure smooth progress of the departmental proceeding. A bare perusal of the enquiry report brought on record in the counter affidavit reflects that the conducting officer has played the role of a Judge and Executioner both. There was no presenting officer who led evidence to prove the charges by oral and/or documentary evidence as the case may be. It was the charge and the defence of the petitioner on basis of which the conducting officer arrived at his conclusion by basing his decision on whether the 4 defence was acceptable or not in his view. The conducting officer was required to be a neutral person. His duty was to assess the evidence led in support of the charge, then examine the defence furnished to arrive at his own independent conclusion. The novel method for a departmental proceeding invented by the respondents notwithstanding judicial pronouncements and their own circulars for the manner in which the departmental proceedings are to be held leaves this Court satisfied that their attitude appears to be, the Court may pass such orders as it may desire but the respondents shall continue to act in a manner that suits them. The impugned orders dated 1.2.2007 and 23.9.2008 are set aside. The writ application is allowed. It is considered necessary to take note of a disturbing feature in the case, a recurrent issue as observed in several cases virtually as a matter of routine on part of the respondents. The Annexures to the counter affidavit are illegible. Chapter III, Rule 4 (I) (i) of the Patna High Court Rules Provides:- “Every petition and every affidavit with Annexure, if any, shall be entitled “In the High Court of 5 Judicature at Patna” and shall be (i) neatly typed except such an annexures as an original or certified copies………” (emphasis added) The emphasis of the Rules is thus on neatly typed copies except when it is an original document or a certified copy. The purpose is to have clear legible copies for adjudication. If the recitals in a document are not legible, there can be no adjudication for justice by speculation of the contents. Judicial time and energy cannot be taxed and dissipated in attempting to read illegible documents at a time when delay is the concern of all. Reading and understanding a document requires simultaneous concentration and appreciation. If concentration has to be restricted to deciphering the document, appreciation shall naturally be a casualty or time consuming. If photocopies of documents, as invention of technology, have also been permitted in lieu of typed copies, the mandatory condition of their being neat and legible has not been waived. The presentation of a writ petition is scrutinized by the stamp reporter who does not allow a petition with illegible copies to be presented for consideration till the defect is not removed. The State cannot have extra privileges to present illegible documents as annexures. It stands as an ordinary 6 litigant on this score. Every Deponent functionary of the State is therefore personally answerable and accountable to the Court in respect of each photocopy of a document annexed to the Counter affidavit and must ensure that he presents clear legible copies of the annexures. The presentation of illegible documents may also amount to willful interference with the course of justice akin to the contemptuous act of presentation of truncated documents. The Registry of the Court shall forward a copy of this order, for the purpose, to the Chief Secretary of the State for apprising all Departmental Heads and Nodal Officers. The Court hopes and trusts that there shall henceforth be no need to consider this issue further when the Court may not countenance matters. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)