CHAND PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is chequered history of this case when the petitioner abovenamed is knocking at the door of the High Court over and again for redressal of his grievance.

(2.) For appreciation of the points involved, the short facts are necessary to be stated in the case.

(3.) It is the submission of the petitioner that no fresh notice, nothing of this sort was given to the petitioner after remand to the Inquiry Officer arid without having any fresh notice or calling for any fresh documents, a second inquiry report was submitted on 14.6.1988, which report has been annexed as Annexure-3. From that report, it transpires that the charges against the petitioner could not be established from the evidence adduced, but in the last part of the report, it has been stated that the claim of the petitioner that the demand notice was opened as per the direction of the Block Development Officer could not be proved as the order of Block Development Officer was not produced from the side of the petitioner, and hence the charge No. 1 was said to be established. Even after receipt of that report, the respondent No.2 issued second show cause notice on 29.6.1993. Against this second show cause notice, the petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 2110 of 1993 (R) stating, inter alia, that the Disciplinary authority had not assigned any reason in disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer filed on 29.6.1983 and that the matter was remanded to the Inquiry Officer without giving any opportunity of showing fresh cause on the petitioner and without his participation, the second enquiry report was submitted.