RAM NANDAN PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

(2.) Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner is not a speaking order and even the appellate order is only empty formality, as would be evident from Annexure-11. He refers to Annexure-2 to submit that the charges are vague and the entire departmental proceeding was only empty formality. It was incumbent upon the respondents to bring home the charges but the respondents have not been able to establish the charges in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. He further submits that no witness was examined, no document was proved in the departmental proceeding to establish the charges against the petitioner. He submits that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and based on such perverse order of punishment was passed, as contained in Annexure-6, as well as appellate order is also unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that this Court has occasion to consider the identical issue while deciding Annexures- 9 and 11.

(3.) The departmental proceeding is not an empty formality, as has been held out by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel, reported in A.I.R. 1964 SC 364. Para 27 of the judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference: