The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to supply specific documents to the delinquent did not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings, as long as the delinquent was allowed to examine all the documents he wished in the presence of the Enquiry Officer, and the Disciplinary Authority met all objections raised by the delinquent before making the final decision, ensuring substantial compliance with procedural requirements and natural justice.

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.

Heard the parties and with their consent, instead of coming to the stay application (I.A.No. 4284 of 2014), as filed by the appellants, we are disposing of the Appeal itself at this stage.

2. The Bihar School Examination Board and its Secretary are the appellants. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17-2-2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5082 of 2007(Jai Mangal Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & others), the writ petitioner, who is respondent no.1 in this Appeal, had filed the writ petition, challenging the order of dismissal from service, as inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority, and not interfered in the appellate proceeding.

3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of Disciplinary Authority, primarily on two grounds; firstly that before the Enquiry Officer the Department had not examined any witness and the writ petitioner, the delinquent, was examined straightway, which was not procedurally correct, and second that, in spite of repeated requests of the delinquent, he was not supplied the documents, as asked for. It is principally on these two grounds that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, as affirmed at the appellate stage, were set aside by the learned Single Judge with liberty to reinitiate the proceeding from the stage of charge, if the Pension Rules provide it, as during the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner superannuated from service. It may be pertinent to note that Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the Board, points out that the Pension Rules, as applicable to the employees of the Bihar School Examination Board do not make provision for continuance of the disciplinary proceeding or initiation thereof after an employee has superannuated.

4. On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that the rules of procedure are for ensuring compliance of principles of natural justice and not to act technically to cut into the decision taken. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge himself has noticed in the judgment that upon application being filed for supply of documents, considering the substantive nature of the documents, undisputedly the writ petitioner was allowed to examine what he wished, in the Computer Cell in presence of the Enquiry Officer. This is not denied. Then to say that the documents not having been supplied would vitiate the proceeding, would be incorrect, unless some prejudice is shown by non-supply of the documents. He further points out that even in the application, requesting for supply of documents, at no point of time any particular document was asked for. A bald application for supply of documents was made repeatedly even after all the documents were made available for his inspection. Thus, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge was not correct in his approach in this regard to the facts, and in the matter. It was then submitted that the writ petitioner was fully aware of the charge, which was very serious, where the Original Tabulation Register of Matriculation results had been interpolated. The writ petitioner had been charged along with others, who had conspired and acted in conspiracy to make interpolation. The writ petitioner was aware of the charge. There is no denial that there was interpolation. It was all a matter of record. Then to insist upon examination of witnesses in support thereof, as was required by the learned Single Judge, was not correct. Further, it is submitted that once such an objection was raised upon submission of Enquiry Report, and the second show cause being issued, the learned Single Judge failed to notice, that the Disciplinary Authority himself called all the official witnesses, who were then examined and cross-examined. Thus, before the decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority, even that technical objection, stood cured.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent no.1 submits t