IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11997 of 1996 VIJAY PRASAD SHARMA Versus M.D.,BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPOPRATION & ORS ----------- 05 22.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Vide order contained in Annexure-8 dated 15.07.1996, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,912/- (Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Twelve only) as an amount and value for the auction of mangoes and grams produced in the Janeshwar Garh farm of respondent, Bihar State Suger Corporation. The order also states that if the said amount is not deposited by the petitioner the same would be deducted from his salary. The contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that it is a misplaced kind of punishment which has come to be passed because no proper procedure was followed before passing of this order in question which has civil consequences for him. He has brought to my notice the so called inquiry report submitted by the then General Manager to the Administrative head of the Corporation dated 15.03.1996 contained in Anneuxre-7 which shows that for identical charge the matter was gone into and no wrong doing was found to have been committed by this petitioner . It is categorically stated that the charges to that extent are not proved against the petitioner but despite this finding by obtaining two statements - 2 - from two persons, namely, Birju Prasad and Kailash Prasad the present order of punishment has come to be passed. The two statements have been brought on record as Annexure-A series, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a unique procedure adopted by the respondents in imposing the punishment in question. An affidavit or statement taken behind the back of the petitioner has no meaning in award of sentence of the kind by which he is aggrieved. There is nothing on record to show that the initial inquiry and the report submitted by the then General Manager was not acted upon or disagreed with by the concerned authority for cogent reasons. The court is of the opinion that the respondents have not followed and complied with the requirements of natural justice before passing the order of punishment in question against the petitioner. In view of the above facts, the order dated 15.07.1996, Annexure-8 is hereby quashed. The writ application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sym/ ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)