RAJESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal, as contained in Annexure-5, which was issued upon conclusion of departmental proceeding against him. Case of the petitioner is that while he was headmaster of a Government Basic School, Mundipur in the district of Siwan, he was served with the charges vide office order dated 31.12.1993 issued under the signature of District Education Officer, Siwan, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure-15 with the second supplementary reply filed on behalf of the petitioner today. In reply to the charges, petitioner submitted his detailed show cause, as contained in Annexure-3.

(2.) In his reply, which runs into 12 pages, petitioner gave detailed explanation with respect to each and every charges separately and also stated that along with the charge memo, relevant documents and list of evidence had not been served on him.

(3.) It is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after the petitioner submitted his reply to the enquiry officer, he did not received any further communication asking him to appear in the proceeding. It is also contended that no document and list of witnesses were served on the petitioner to enable him to get prepared for his defence in the enquiry. It is submitted that the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer without holding an enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the same and defend his case. It is also contended that even copy of the enquiry report was not served on him nor was he served with a second show cause notice along with the enquiry report to meet the findings of the enquiry officer by filing representation for consideration of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority without complying those requirements, passed order finding the charges true and issued orders of his termination. He submits that the entire proceeding thus stands vitiated on account of gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and therefore, the impugned order is fit to be quashed. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case by the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that notices were issued to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry but he failed to do so and therefore, enquiry officer proceeded ex-parte and submitted his report on the basis of materials available before him.