MADHURESH PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. The petitioner, while posted as Probationer Sub Registrar at Thakurganj in the district of Kishanganj was served with a charge memo dated 21.03.2016. The same contained charges substance of which is as follows:—

(i) Petitioner used to come to the office late in the afternoon, usually after 3 pm with her father,

(ii) on account of her coming late to office, the State has suffered revenue loss and the distant villagers have been inconvenienced in availing the registration services in the office,

(iii) Another allegation in the charge memo is that she was not conducting spot verification before giving effect to registration of documents and

(iv) Dereliction of duty and misconduct.

3. The petitioner has been proceeded against. She has submitted a reply by way of an elaborate written statement in respect of each charge.

4. The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer who submitted his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. A copy of the enquiry report is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. From bare perusal of the enquiry report, it is obvious that the proceedings, being conducted for bringing home the above noted four charges, was concluded in one singe day, i.e, on 29.04.2016.

5. The enquiry report contains mention of two earlier enquiry reports, one dated 09.04.2015 said to have been submitted by the Circle Officer, Thakurganj and the other dated 18.04.2015, submitted by the District Sub Registrar. An allegation dated 24.04.2015 submitted by the District Sub Registrar is also one of the documents considered by the Enquiry Officer as documentary evidence in support of the above noted four charges.

6. The admitted position that emerges from the pleadings is that the authors of these documents have not been examined by the Enquiry Officer.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents, being relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, are enquiry reports which cannot be said to be any material in support of the charges, taken note of above. The reports are said to be by the Circle Officer and the District Sub Registrar. It is an admitted position that neither the Circle Officer, Thakurganj nor the District Sub Registrar, Kishanganj have been examined in the proceedings. The procedural prescription in Rule 17 (14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) (for brevity, CCA) Rules, 2005, therefore, has been violated. It is submitted that since these officials have not been examined in the enquiry, the petitioner has also been deprived of her opportunity to cross-examine the author of these documents and, therefore, reliance placed on these documents for bringing home the charges is clearly unsustainable.

8. The learned State Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner had partially admitted to the allegations, specifically the allegation regarding indirect control of her father in discharge of her day-to-day’s duties. It is also submitted that since the Enquiry Officer has held the allegations to be proved on the basis of the documents, noted above, the submission of the petitioner’s counsel, that there was no material in support of the charges, is incorrect.

9. Another aspect of the matter that this Court would notice in the proceedings is that there was no Presenting Officer in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has assumed the role of Presenting Officer and the proceedings manifests the fact that it is the Enquiry Officer who was placing the case of the department and taking down petitioner’s response while at the same time referring to these two reports which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the State.

10. Considering the rival submissions, this Court would find that the way in which the enquiry has been conducted is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The procedure prescription in Rule 17 (14) of the CCA Rules has not been followed. There was no Presenting Officer to present the case on