HARDEO NARAYAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging inter alia, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner and also the order cancelling the second time bound promotion which was granted to the petitioner. Learned coun93l for the petitioner has actually challenged three orders in this writ petition; first one is annexure-11 which is the order imposing punishment on the petitioner. Second one iis annexure-13 which is the order dated 2nd june, 1993 passed by the respondentauthority rejecting the petitioner's representation against the order of penalty and the third one is the order dated 15th June, 1993 (annexure-14) whereby the second time bound promotion given to the petitioner in 1985 has been cancelled and the recovery of amount paid to the petitioner as a result of the said promotion has been ordered.

(2.) IT appears that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of certain charges. It is not in dispute that in respect of those charges an enquiry was held and the enquiry report was admittedly not given to the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has fairly admitted that even though the charge-sheet was given to the petitioner and also memo of evidence but the enquiry report, which was submitted by the enquiring officer after conclusion of the enquiry was not given to the petitioner.