IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16338 of 2008 Saraswaty Press Limited 11 B.T. Road, Kolkata represented through its authorized signatory Rajan Rastogi S/o-Sri. Ramesh Prasad Rastogi, Resident of-Pati Gali, Nai Sarak Chowk, P.S.-City Chowk, Patna City, District-Patna. ………Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar School Examination Board through its Chairman, Sinha Library Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary (Stores), Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. ……..Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Tara Kant Jha, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Anjani Kumar Singha, Adv. For the Respondent B.S.E.B : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Piyush Lall, Adv. ------------ 03. 01.04.2009 Petitioner is a Press at Kolkata and undertakes printing of security documents. It had accepted orders of the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna for printing answer books and draft papers for the Matriculation and Senior Secondary School Examination, 2008. It is not in dispute that there was slight delay in printing and supplying papers which of course did not in any way upset the examination schedule. At different stages, petitioner was asked for explanation with regard to the delay and the quality of papers. Petitioner offered his 2 explanation. Subsequently the total amount of papers that was required to be supplied were also reduced and later on petitioner’s explanation having not been found satisfactory, it was rejected and petitioner had been black listed for a period of five years. Counter affidavit has been filed with rejoinders and with the consent of the parties, the writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a bare reference to the alleged show cause would show that those communications did not at any point of time or in any manner indicate as to for what purpose explanations were being sought for, as, it said, it was for necessary action but what action under what provision was never disclosed. This was not in compliance of natural justice. This, he submitted in addition to various other pleas taken by him on facts to justify that the stand of the Respondent Board was not correct. It was inter alia pointed out that where the paper was tested, which paper was tested nothing was disclosed to the petitioner before or at the time of testing. It was further submitted that unreasonably the payment has been withheld. Further punishment as such even if the 3 facts as found are correct is disproportionate. In my view, all these considerations are matter which the authority at the first instance has to consider. However, the writ petition must succeed on a very short issue. As noticed above, none of the so called show cause notices disclose as to for what purpose the show cause was being issued or what is the nature of proceeding and what is going to be the result. In that view of the matter, it amounts to non-disclosure of the nature of punishment to follow. Only thing that I can do is refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor versus Jagmohan and others since reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 136 wherein in paragraph 16 it has been held thus. “The requirements of natural justice are met only if opportunity to represent is given in view of proposed action. The demands of natural justice are not met even if the very person proceeded against has furnished the information on which the action is based, if it is furnished in a casual way or for some other purpose. The person proceeded against must know that he is being required to meet the allegations which might lead to a certain action being taken against him. 4 If that is made known the requirements are met.” In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 13th May, 2008 as contained in Annexure- 24 can not be sustained and as such is quashed with liberty to the Board to reinitiate the proceedings after issuance of proper show cause and taking action in accordance with law thereafter if so advised. The writ application stands allowed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)