IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3018 of 2008 Sheo Kumar Saw, son of Late Rangi Saw, village Jurahi, PS Madanpur, district Aurangabad – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3) The Dist. Magistrate, Aurangabad. 4) The Block Dev. Officer, Nabinagar, Dist. Aurangabad – Respondents. 4 2.5.2011 The petitioner who was working as Panchayat Sewak of Sori Gram Panchayat within Nabinagar block is aggrieved by the fact that he has been dismissed from service in a departmental proceeding. The allegations against the petitioner is that the works of various schemes were not up to the mark, there is also an allegation of misappropriation of Government funds. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges and referred the matter to the disciplinary authority to dismiss the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal which was disposed of on 10.7.2008 vide Annexure 11 annexed with I.A. No. 2452/2011. The main issues raised on behalf of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the appeal he filed an application stating that the Block Development Officer, Nabinagar who was responsible for sanctioning the amount has found that the schemes for which the petitioner was Incharge were completed and thus the allegations that the scheme s were not completed is not borne out. The said letter of the Block Development Officer has been annexed in the memo of appeal. In the circumstances it is submitted that where there is an allegation that the work was not done and the funds were 2 withdrawn which were allocated for various schemes, this statement of the Block Development Officer becomes important and goes to the very root of the matter. In my opinion the petitioner ought to have filed a supplementary application asking that additional evidence may be taken and that the Block Development officer may be examined to substantiate the letter contained in Annexure 8. I, therefore, quash the order, dated 10.7.2008 contained in Annexure 11 and remand the matter back to the appellate authority for taking additional evidence in this case. The appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya should issue notice to the concerned Block Development Officer, and thereafter transfer the matter to the disciplinary authority, who will record the evidence of Block Development Officer, allow the petitioner to cross examine the Block Development Officer and then return the matter back to the appellate authority for passing a final order. The said procedure should be concluded within three months from the date of valid service of notice on the Block Development Officer, Nabinagar. The petitioner would not be entitled for reinstatement till disposal of the matter. The petitioner may bring this order to the notice of the Commissioner within four weeks. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)