The principles of natural justice require that a departmental inquiry be conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that the accused be given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him.

A.K.Ganguly, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of suspension dated 22nd March, 1990 passed against the petitioner as well as departmental proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner. During the pendency of this writ petition, the departmental inquiry was concluded, and final order was also passed. The petitioner by filing amendment petition challenged those orders also in this proceeding.

2. Prior to this writ petition another writ petition was filed by the petitioner being C.W.J.C. No. 2390 of 1990 challenging the suspension order. While hearing that writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 2390 of 1990), the learned Division Bench of this Court recorded the submission of the petitioner that the suspension order was passed on the basis of a report made by one Sri Hari Sharan Singh, Superintending Engineer, who was a member of Flying Squad. It was also recorded that Sri Hari Sharan Singh had engaged about 1100 persons on muster roll in an illegal manner and huge payments were made to such persons. The petitioner took steps for removing those 1100, persons from muster roll and stopped payment to them. This annoyed said Sri Hari Sharan Singh and he being a member of Flying Squad, at his instance, the petitioner was put under suspension. It was also recorded that ultimately, the order of the petitioner removing those persons from muster roll was challenged before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court did not interfere in the matter,

3. Learned Division Bench of this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by order dated 30th July, 1990 with the following direction:

However, we direct the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, to look into the aforesaid allegations made on behalf of the petitioner. If the petitioner is able to substantiate the aforesaid allegation, then it need not be said that the order of suspension should be withdrawn as early as possible. The inquiry by the Secretary, Department of Water Resources in respect of the allegations made on behalf of the petitioner, should preferably be concluded within two months from the date of production of this order.

However, in the meantime, the departmental proceeding, which has been initiated against the petitioner, should proceed and be concluded preferably within four months from the date of production of this order. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to Junior Counsel to the Advocate-General for communication.

4. During the pendency of the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, departmental proceeding was concluded and inquiry report was made without giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity of hearing in the same and without directing the said Sri Hari Sharan Singh to appear in the said proceeding for cross-examination.

5. The petitioners case is that the said request for cross-examination of Sri Hari Sharan Singh made by the petitioner was turned down.

6. When the writ petition was filed a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24-4-1991 recorded that though the order of suspension has been passed on 22nd March, 1990 and a period of one year has expired but the subsistence allowance has not been paid to the petitioner even for a single month. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 24-4-1991 directed the Secretary, Water Resources Department (respondent No. 1) to see that the amount of subsistence allowance from 22-3-1990 up to date is paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of production of a copy of this order,

7. Thereafter, the case appeared before the different Division Benches of this Court from time to time and vide order dated 14-11-1991 a Division Bench consisting of Hon ble the Chief Justice and the Hon ble Mr. Justice S. Hoda passed an order that a copy of the inquiry report be furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be entitled to make a repre