AJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

(2.) ALL has not been well the way the authorities have proceeded in the matter. Petitioner was suspended vide order dated 5.8.2005 for so -called omission and commission. The petitioner had to file the present writ application in the year 2006 because the authorities after suspending him chose to take their own sweet time in the matter as well as not grant him subsistence allowance when he was under suspension. This Court ordered filing of counter affidavits on behalf of the respondents and several adjournments had to be made in this regard. At one point of time indulgence was granted to produce the enquiry report also but there was dillydally on the issue. As far as payment of subsistence allowance is concerned this Court had to order personal appearance of the Block Development Officer because the earlier affidavit filed on his behalf was not truthful. Subsequently, it did emerge that the averments made in the affidavits did not match with the factual situation. This Court was inclined to take a serious view in the matter but the concerned Block Development Officer expressed genuine regret in this regard and pleaded with the Court to take a lenient view of the matter since he was still new in the service.

(3.) ON 13.3.2007 this Court in its wisdom directed production of the original file relating to the disciplinary proceeding of the petitioner. On examination of the same the hunch of the Court has come true that the proceeding has not been conducted in a fair manner and the petitioner has been prejudiced while defending himself. Whatever be the charges every delinquent or an accused has to be granted fullest opportunity to explain his conduct and nothing ought to be done by any authority to rush to a conclusion declaring a person guilty.