IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.391 of 2008 01. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 02. THE I.G., PRISONS, BIHAR, PATNA. 03. THE SUPERINTENDENT, SPECIAL CENTRAL JAIL, BHAGALPUR 04. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF UP-KARA, JAMUI ………. RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS Versus 01. LEELA DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE KULANAND JHA 02. RUPESH JHA, SON OF LATE KULANAND JHA BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-OJHAOL, P.S.-BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ………. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS For the Appellants:- Mr. Piyush Lall, J.C. to AAG-III For the Respondents:- Mrs. M. Chaterjee, Advocate Mr. M. Chaterjee, Advocate Mr.Samir Kr. Sinha, Advocate ----------- 09 07.01.2009 Respondents-appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 11334 of 2006 setting aside the order of punishment of removal from service, have preferred this appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent. Mr. Piyush Lall J.C. to AAG-III appears on behalf of the appellants. Respondents are represented by Mrs. M. Chaterjee. Even if, we assume in favour of appellants that no formal enquiry report is to be submitted when disciplinary authority himself conducts the enquiry, but this in our opinion will not oblivate the responsibility of the disciplinary authority to consider the defence of the delinquent employee. From the order impugned it does not appear that the disciplinary authority had considered his defence. - 2 - Taking into account the aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge found that the order of removal bad in law. We do not find any error in the order impugned. Appeal stands dismissed in limine. P.K. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)