- (1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner and the counsel for the State is present.
(2.) PETITIONER in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 1180 dated 8.5.2008 (Annexure -1) whereby the respondent has served charge -sheet on the petitioner and initiated Departmental Proceeding against him under Rule 12 of the Bihar and Orissa (Subordinate Services) Conduct and Appeal Rules 1935 and has appointed the respondent no. 3 as the Presenting Officer and also Inquiry Officer, this, according to the petitioner, is in total violation of settled principles of law that a person cannot be a Judge for his own cause. A further prayer is for a direction to the respondents to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period of his suspension. Counsel for the petitioner explains that before issuing the charge -sheet, the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice in order to explain as to why Departmental Proceeding should not be initiated against him and furthermore, from the nature of charges, it would transpire that the charges have been levelled only on the basis of an adverse report submitted by the respondent no. 3 himself. Contention of the learned counsel is that when the charge -sheet is based on the adverse report of the respondent no. 3 himself, he should not be allowed to preside over the Departmental Proceeding as an Inquiry Officer or else, there is every likelihood that justice will be denied to the petitioner.
(3.) COUNSEL for the State though has not filed any counter -affidavit, but submits that considering the facts and circumstances pleaded by the petitioner, direction can be issued to the respondent no. 2 to either conduct the Departmental Proceedings against the petitioner himself or to appoint any other competent person.;