Navin Sinha, J.

1. The prayer in the present writ application is to quash the memo of charges issued against the petitioner dated 21.6.1982 at Annexure 3. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the enquiry report dated 15.3.1983 at Annexure 12 in pursuance thereto as also to quash the consequent order dated 8.6.1985 at Annexure 15 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Having preferred a re presentation/review against the order of dismissal and the same having been rejected, the prayer also is to quash the order dated 22.8.2003 at Annexure 21.

2. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Assistant (Incharge Nazir) in Triveniganj block. An allegation was made against the petitioner of defalcation of a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 combined with the charge of having violated government procedures for withdrawal and transportation of such a large amount of cash leading to loss of the same. The petitioner was taken into custody on 10.8.1981 in Supaul PS Case No. 123 of 1984 registered u/s. 409 of the Penal Code on 28.8.1981, the petitioner was placed under suspension. A copy of the First Information Report is on record as Annexure 2.

3. On 21.6.1982 departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by serving on him the memo of charges which is at Annexure 3. It would be necessary at this stage to observe that the charges in the departmental proceedings at Annexure 3 are the same as the allegations against the petitioner in the First Information Report at Annexure 1. This fact has also been reiterated by the petitioner in para 10 of the present application.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the departmental proceedings neither any list of witnesses nor any list of documents were supplied to the petitioner with the memo of charges, thus causing him serious prejudice. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and requested for supply of documents. However no document or list of witnesses were provided to the petitioner who then proceeded to submit his reply to the same within his limitations denying the allegations. The petitioners request for summoning the witnesses named in the FIR was not acceded to by the Enquiry Officer, thus causing serious prejudice to him. Quite apart from the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer despite the request of the petitioner did not call for the relevant original documents from the concerned office. The ultimate allegation by the petitioner against the departmental proceedings was that there was no Presenting Officer appointed on behalf of the Department and therefore the Enquiry Officer acted as both the Judge and the Executioner, Based on such conduct of a departmental proceeding contrary to all cannons of law and procedure, the Enquiry Officer of his own on the basis of the departmental documents available with him and the show cause submitted by the petitioner proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty by his report dated 15.3.1983 at Annexure 12.

5. This led to the issuance of the second show cause notice to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 and finally culminated in the order of dismissal dated 8.6.1985 at Annexure 15.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that both during the pendency of the departmental proceedings as also at the stage of submission of reply to the second show cause, the petitioner had requested that further action in the departmental proceedings be restrained till decision in the aforesaid Supaul PS Case No. 123/81 registered against him. The allegations and charges in both being the same. Notwithstanding the same the authorities in haste proceeded with the departmental proceedings and passed final orders of punishment. It is relevant to point out here that the pleadings of the petitioner both with regard to non- compliance of procedures of a departmental enquiry as recorded hereinabove, and to the prejudice of the petitioner, as also the pleadings with regard