IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.487 of 2009 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12621 of 2002 ======================================================= Kapildeo Narain Sinha, son of late Jamuna Prasad Sinha, resident of Laxmi Bhawan, Mohalla-West Patel Nagar, Police Station-Shastri Nagar, Towy and District- Patna .... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Water Resource Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 2. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resource Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna .... .... Respondents ======================================================= Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. R.N.MUKHOPADHAYA, Adv. For the State : Maleshwari Dhan Dwivedi (SC23) Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.23 ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI) The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.03.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12621 of 2002. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant herein being aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 02.07.2000 which was affirmed in appeal by an order dated 20.09.2002. The appellant was charge-sheeted and a show cause was issued to him along with the copy of the Flying Squad report. A minor punishment was also imposed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards the value of iron Patna High Court LPA No.487 of 2009 dt.12-09-2011 2 rod gone missing from the stores of which the petitioner-appellant herein is alleged to have been in-charge. It has been argued before the learned Single Judge that the appellant has sought certain documents, which are necessary for submitting his explanation. However, the same was not furnished, hence, the action of the respondent authorities with regard to imposing minor punishment of recovery is in violation principles of natural justice. But however, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the writ petition and therefore the present appeal has been preferred. More or less, the same contention has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal. We see some force in the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant to the effect that the delinquent employee has sought certain documents and it is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to supply the same. In this case, it is evident that the respondent authorities failed to supply such documents as sought by the appellant and therefore such action of the respondent authority can be termed as violation of the principles of Patna High Court LPA No.487 of 2009 dt.12-09-2011 3 natural justice. Having heard the both sides, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where a direction can be issued to the respondent authorities to supply the documents as sought for by the appellant herein. In view of the fact that it is an old matter, we give liberty to the appellant to make a fresh representation seeking documents as required by him within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the respondent authorities must supply the same within a period of four weeks from the date of such representation. The appellant also must submit his explanation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such document before the respondent authorities. In case of failure of submission of such explanation, the order of the learned Single Judge becomes operative. With the above observation the Appeal stands disposed of. Patna High Court Dated 12th September, 2011 Ashwini/NAFR (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)