1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner was holding the post of Nazir cum Urdu Translator in the District of Supaul. By an order dated 5.12.2008 he has been dismissed in pursuance of a departmental proceeding held against him.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there were eight charges against the petitioner. The charges were required to be proved by the Presenting Officer in accordance with law by leading evidence oral and documentary. If oral evidence had been led and documentary evidence produced the petitioner could have countered the same and sought cross-examination of witnesses also. The enquiry report manifests that the Presenting Officer did not lead any oral or documentary evidence. The enquiry officer has relied on minutes furnished by the Block Development Officer outside the proceedings abdicating his own duty to arrive at any conclusion with regard to the nature of the charges based upon evidence in support of the same or in denial of the same. In pursuance of this enquiry conducted contrary to law, a second show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner eloquently raised objection to the manner in which the departmental enquiry had been held running into 12 pages and the prejudice caused to him which has also been given a short shrift by the disciplinary authority by simply stating that the reply to the second show cause notice had been considered.

4. Counsel for the State submitted that there has been no procedural impropriety in the departmental proceedings. The petitioner was given due notice. He filed his reply to the charges. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report thereafter. A second show cause notice was given to the petitioner duly replied by him. The Court shall not reassess the nature of the evidence before the enquiry officer. There are criminal charges against the petitioner on the same allegations which are pending consideration. The fact that the petitioner was the Nazir cum Urdu Translator at the relevant point of time is not denied or disputed. The strict rules of evidence are not applicable in departmental proceedings and therefore there was no need to lead any witnesses. The petitioner himself absented from the proceeding. There has been no bias against the petitioner.

5. The law with regard to the manner for conduct of departmental proceedings and the extent of judicial review permissible stands well settled.

In (2008) 8 SCC 236 (State of Uttaranchal Vs. Kharak Singh) at paragraph 15 it stands explained as follows :-

(ii) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities.

(iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.

(iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any.

6. There were eight charges against the petitioner. Four of them related to allegation of forgery of the signature of another. The other charges related to deficiency in discharge of duties and presentation of bills without signature of the Block Development Officer raising the allegations of misappropriation.

7. Forgery is primarily a question of fact to be proved by evidence both oral and documentary. Oral evidence has to be of the person whose signature is alleged to have been forged. Documentary evidence has to be by a cursory examination of the documents and signatures alleged to have been forged. The person whose signature is allege