S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, A.C.J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was working as a Clerk since 1973, was suspended on 29th September, 1994 and a departmental proceeding was initiated vide resolution bearing Memo No. 304 dated 20th April, 1995. It was alleged that the petitioner misusing his post has taken part in the matter of illegal and forged appointments as also issued forged purchase order of medicine. The petitioner filed a show cause reply denying the allegation wherein -after the order of suspension was revoked. Later on, the revocation of order of suspension was recalled by order dated 11th December, 1995 and thereby he was treated to be continuing under suspension. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1388 of 1996, wherein the Patna High Court, by order dated 19th November, 1996, while did not choose to interfere with the order of suspension, directed the authorities to pass final order in the departmental proceeding by 18th December, 1996. The petitioner was directed to cooperate in the departmental proceeding with liberty to the authorities to proceed ex parte, if the petitioner does not cooperate, with further order that if the final decision is not taken within the time framed then the order of suspension will stand revoked w.e.f. 19th December, 1996. It appears that thereafter a second show cause notice was issued and on receipt of reply, the petitioner was dismissed from service by impugned order No. 563 dated 24th September, 1998.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal on the following grounds: (i) The charge is vague; (ii) The enquiry officer had not given any opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the enquiry. The decision was taken by the enquiry officer behind his back; And (iii) Without supplying the copy of the enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The respondents disputed the aforesaid fact and took the following plea: (a) Charge is specific; (b) He was given opportunity and on receipt of notice, he has submitted his show cause reply; And (c) The proceeding has been concluded after full opportunity to the petitioner. There being contradictory stand taken by the parties, the Court directed the respondents to produce the original records. After going through the original records, the following face emerges: A preliminary enquiry was made by one Dr. Akhouri Ramesh Chandra Sinha, Deputy Director (Administration), Health Services, Bihar, Patna, who by his Report dated 29th November, 1994 alleged that a large number of illegal appointments were made between 1st January, 1986 to 1989; orders of suspension were issued against the petitioner and 15 others and he recommended to initiate a departmental proceeding against them. While he directed to initiate proceeding, he also recommended to dismiss all the 16 persons including the petitioner from service. Thus, a decision was finally taken to dismiss the petitioner and 15 others and for giving effect to such order, it was ordered to initiate a proceeding. Charge was framed and communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 304/(22)/Health, Patna dated 20th April, 1995. In the said Memo, a vague charge was framed that while he was posted in the Dumka Surgency, misusing his post he had taken part in the matter of illegal and forged appointment and issuance of forgod orders of purchase of medicine for which he was found guilty. No specific imputation of charge framed nor communicated to the petitioner. Neither the names of illegal appointees were mentioned nor the details of their appointments were shown in the charge -sheet. No details relating to any illegal purchase of medicine were shown in the charge -sheet nor any such information was given to the petitioner. Neither the list of any documentary evidence was enclosed nor the list of any witness enclosed with the charge -sheet or communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner having received the charge -sheet, denied the allegation but it appears that in spite of denial, the reply was ignored.
(3.) THERE is nothing on the record to suggest that the competent authority or any other authority forwarded any list of evidence or witness to the enquiry officer. Even the enquiry officer was not forwarded with any specific imputation of charges. Neither the petitioner nor the enquiry officer were intimated as to who was appointed illegally or by which order such appointments were made or by which purchase order any medicine was purchased.;