IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19306 of 2010 RAMAYAN CHAUDHARY, son of Late Firangi Chaudhary, Resident of Village-Harkhauli, P.O. and P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj, presently working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Basic School, Gopalganj, District Gopalganj. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Special Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapra. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj Cum Enquiry Officer. ----------- 2 26.11.2010 Grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of a show cause notice issued by the respondents the petitioner was asked to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj on 31st August, 2010 to show genuineness of his appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the authority and filed an application regarding validity of his appointment, but the petitioner was dismissed from service vide letter contained in Memo No. 1078 dated 6.11.2010 after about 20 years of his service without giving an opportunity of hearing which is in violation of principles of natural justice. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no.6 was appointed as Enquiry Officer and in the departmental proceeding charges have been framed against him and the petitioner was called upon for enquiry on 31.8.2010 and thereafter the petitioner had appeared on that date and showed his bonafide, as stated above. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the enquiry 2 report has not been annexed with the show cause notice to know the contents of the departmental proceeding or the charges framed against him. Hence, the petitioner was not in a position to reply the same and surprisingly the petitioner was dismissed from service without giving an opportunity to defend himself which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the State has tried to support his case by stating that after issuing the show cause notice charges have been framed by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding and thereafter the petitioner was asked to come for enquiry on 31st August, 2010 and after conducting the departmental enquiry impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was passed. The contents of the show cause notice by which the petitioner was asked to appear on 31st August, 2010 has been translated by learned counsel for the petitioner from which it appears that no enquiry report has been annexed with the show cause notice so that the petitioner would know the charges of the departmental proceeding which would enable him to file reply, but surprisingly enough without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service has been passed against the petitioner on the basis of said show cause notice. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing and therefore the same is 3 in violation of the principles of natural justice. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the show cause notice, which has been translated by learned counsel for petitioner, goes to show that the same was vague and was issued without containing any information as with regard to departmental proceeding or the charges being framed against the petitioner and as such the said show cause notice cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is also in violation of principles of natural justice. It appears that the petitioner has not been informed about any enquiry, if any, nor any enquiry has been conducted to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some aggrieved persons have also filed a writ application before this Court to which the petitioner was not a party. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the respondents are at liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. With the above observation this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (T. Meena Kumari, J.)