The absence of a Presenting Officer in disciplinary proceedings vitiates the proceedings.

1. Heard Mr. Nitiranjan Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Bank.

2. With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard with a view to finally disposal of at the stage of admission itself.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.10.2012/18.10.2012 of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, whereby as an appellate authority he has upheld the order of dismissal dated 14.11.2000 passed against the petitioner by the Administrator, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'), a copy of which order(s), is impugned at Annexure 11 and 9 respectively to the writ petition.

4. In the nature of the order which this Court proposes to pass it would not be required to delve deep into the merit of the case. Suffice it to say that amongst other arguments advanced by Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, the argument which drives home the matter in favour of the petitioner is the undisputed fact that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in absence of the Presenting Officer. Law is well settled and a disciplinary proceeding conducted in absence of the Presenting Officer stands vitiated. An identical issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Lalan Pandey v. the State of Bihar & ors. arising from C.W.J.C.No. 270/2016 and this Court after taking note of the judgment(s) rendered by this Court and the Apex Court on the issue, has concluded as follows:

"The legal position being such, the Enquiry Officer representing the Disciplinary Authority could not have assumed the role of a Presenting Officer who represents the department and thus is an interested party. This single aspect of the matter has left the entire proceedings vitiated. The opinion expressed by this Court is supported in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2010)2 SCC 772 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha) and paragraph 28 of the judgment explains the legal position which reads as under:

"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/ disciplinary authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents."

5. Reference in this regard is made to another judgment of this Court reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 401 (Panchanan Kumar vs. Bihar State Electricity Board) which was a case in which even when the Presenting Officer was appointed for the proceedings, he failed to appear and which role was assumed by the Enquiry Officer himself. A Bench of this Court taking note of the circumstances, made the following observations:

"11. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that in the instant case the inquiry has been vitiated inasmuch as the enquiry officer himself has acted as the presenting officer even though the presenting officer was appointed by the Electricity Board. There is no explanation why the said presenting officer did not appear before the enquiry officer to present the case of the department. In the peculiar facts of this case, the action of the enquiry officer to present the case himself on behalf of the department and also to take upon himself the duty of enquiring the correctness or otherwise of the said case clearly shows that the enquiry officer, in the instant case, has failed to discharge his duty as a fair and impartial enquiry authority. He has rolled up within himself the role of both th