Navin Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in all the three applications as also the counsel for the State.

2. In all the three applications, the petitioner is the same person. He has been visited with separate punishments in separate proceedings under Rule 55 A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (hereinafter to he referred to as the Rules) and, thus, the necessity for him to file three separate writ applications. The cumulative effect of the three orders of punishment has been the denial of promotion to him on the post of Superintending Engineer from the date as recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission.

3. The petitioner on 12.9.1974 was confirmed as Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in Water Resources Department. On 5.6.1980 he was given current charge of the post of Superintending Engineer. Simultaneously, he filed a representation for consideration of his case for promotion in the reserved category of Scheduled tribe claiming to be "Lohar Tribe". His representation was rejected in December, 1990. His saga of harassment starts thereafter when he has had to come to this Court repeatedly in writ applications and in contempt applications

While the petitioner kept approaching this Court in writ applications and contempt applications arising out of the same, the Bihar Public Service Commission recommended the petitioner on 3.12.1997 for substantive promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the date that his juniors have been promoted i.e. 9.2.1982. The benefit of this recommendation has been denied to the petitioner for reasons of certain punishment given to him in three separate departmental proceedings visiting him with punishment for the years 1977-78 (giving rise to CWJC No. 2041 of 2000), 1988-89 (giving rise to CWJC No. 2043 of 2000) and 1989-90 (giving rise to CWJC No. 2040 of 2000).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to CWJC No. 2041 of 2000 submitted that the show cause notice dated 29.8.1990 which culminated in the order of punishment dated 27.7.1998 was never served upon him. He referred to paragraph 28 of his pleadings to substantiate the plea of non-service of the show cause notice despite his written request to be supplied copies of the same. The petitioner is additionally stated to have taken this ground in his memo of appeal which came to be rejected on 23.6.1999 without considering the same.

5. In CWJC No. 2043 of 2000, the show cause notice given to the petitioner was based on a report of the flying squad. It was urged that even in a proceedings for a minor punishment the materials on which the show cause was based was required to be furnished. He relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1983 BBCJ 33 (Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh V/s. The State of Bihar & ors.) in support of his submissions. Learned counsel specifically referred to paragraph 31 of his pleadings in support of the plea that the report of the flying squad on which the show cause notice was based was never given to him. In CWJC No. 2040 of 2000 similarly the report of the flying squad which was the basis of the show cause notice was not given to the petitioner for which reliance has been placed on the specific pleadings in paragraph 31 and 32 of the writ application.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposing the writ application submitted that it has been stated in the counter affidavit in CWJC No. 2041 of 2000 that the show cause notice was served on the petitioner. With regard to CWJC No. 2043 of 2000 it was submitted that the petitioner never made a demand for the report of the flying squad which itself was indicative of the fact that he has not been prejudiced. In CWJC No. 2040 of 2000 it was urged that the petitionee was advised that if he required the report of the flying squad he should collect it from the office of the Deputy Secretary and that it was wrong to say that necessary documents were not supplied to the petitioner.

7.