JUDGMENT
Narayan Roy, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. This writ application is directed against the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner, issued vide Memo No. 21 dated 19.1.2001, as contained in Annexure 18.
3. From the facts, as stated in the writ application, it appears that the petitioner, a Block Development Officer, was proceeded against departmentally in terms of Rule 55 of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules on the charges of corruption and administrative incapability. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Khazaria, was appointed as the conducting officer and on submission of inquiry report and on consideration of the reply to the second show-cause notice filed by the petitioner, the order impugned was issued dismissing the petitioner from services.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order impugned on the ground that no fair inquiry was held against the petitioner nor the inquiry report was served upon him either before serving the second show-cause notice for the proposed punishment or before passing of the order impugned. Learned counsel submits that the conducting officer had made the preliminary inquiry against the conduct of the petitioner and he had drawn up the charges against him, and, thus, he became judge of his own cause. In paragraphs 38 and 40 of the writ application, it is categorically stated that a copy of the inquiry report was not served upon the petitioner, enabling him file an effective show-cause. Paragraph 38 of the writ application has not been answered in either of the paragraphs of the counter affidavit. However, paragraph 40 of the writ application has been answered in paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the record shows that all the papers were supplied to the petitioner and he was served with the second show-cause notice also.
5. In no clear terms, it is stated in the counter affidavit as to whether prior to passing of the order of punishment, a copy of inquiry report was served upon the petitioner, rather a vague statement has been made that all the papers had been supplied to the petitioner. Non-supply of a copy of the inquiry report goes to the root of the case.
6. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the conduct of the inquiry officer is concerned, it is stated in paragraph 9 of the writ application that departmental proceeding vitiated, as the Deputy Development Commissioner was appointed as the inquiry officer, who had enquired into the allegation against the petitioner and had framed charges against him.
7. The statement made in paragraph 9 of the writ application has been answered in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the following terms :
“………This inquiry can not be deemed to be vitiated merely because it is conducted by an officer who had made a preliminary inquiry and then drew up the charges.”
From the statement made in the writ application vis-a-vis in the counter affidavit, as noticed above, it is manifest that neither the copy of the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner before passing of the order impugned nor there was fair inquiry, inasmuch that the officer, who had held the preliminary inquiry and drawn up the charges against the petitioner, was appointed as conducting officer and ultimately, he submitted the inquiry report against the petitioner.
8. It has been held by the Supreme Court as also by this Court that non-supply of the inquiry report prejudices the case of the delinquent and, thus, the order of punishment would be without jurisdiction.
9. In this connection reference may be made to the case of The Union of India and Ors. Md. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 (1) SC 471.
10. The inquiry held against the petitioner and the order of dismissal further vitiate on the ground that the conducting officer became judge of his own cause and thus prejudiced the case of the petitioner, as he held the preliminary inquiry against the conduct of the petitioner and drew up the charges against him.
11. It would not be out of place to mention here that in course of inquiry the petitioner had raised this preliminary question for change of the inquiry officer, which would be evident from Annexure 5.
12. For the reasons aforementioned, the order impugned, as contained in Annexure 18, is held to be violative of the principles of Natural Justice and without jurisdiction.
13. In the result, this application succeeds, the order impugned, as contained in Annexure 18 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The respondent authorities may, however, proceed in the matter, if so advised, in accordance with law.