SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of statement made in I.A. No. 1896 of 2006, prayer of amendment is allowed and the aforesaid interlocutory application will become part and parcel of this writ application.

(2.) It is submitted by Sri Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that Petitioner was suspended in the year 1996 and a departmental proceeding initiated against him. However, when no order passed in the said departmental proceeding, though enquiry had already concluded, Petitioner filed a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 400 of 1998 and said writ application disposed of vide order dated 15.03.1999, directing the Respondent to pass final order in the departmental proceeding after serving a copy of inquiry report on the Petitioner. It appears that in compliance of aforesaid order, vide Annexure 15, inquiry report served upon the Petitioner. The said inquiry report is annexed as Annexure 16.

(3.) It is submitted that from perusal of inquiry report, it appears that the Enquiry Officer (Respondent No. 5) exonerated Petitioner from all the charges leveled against him. It is submitted that by Annexure 17, the Respondent State differed from the findings of inquiry report and said that on reconsideration of materials charge Nos. 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 have been found proved against Petitioner. It is submitted that no reason assigned by the Respondent State for differing with the findings of Enquiry Officer. Thus, finding of the Respondent State cannot be sustained.